family, friends and neighbors caring for children through ... · child care assistance, child care...

Family, Friends and Neighbors Caring for Children Through the Minnesota Child Care Assistance Program

A Survey of Caregivers and Parents

February 2006

Family, Friends and Neighbors Caring for Children Through the Minnesota Child Care Assistance Program A Survey of Caregivers and Parents

FEBRUARY 2006

Prepared by: Richard Chase, Joanne Arnold and Laura Schauben

Wilder Research 1295 Bandana Blvd. North, Suite 210 St. Paul, MN 55108 (651) 647-4600 www.wilderresearch.org

Family, friends and neighbors caring for children December 2005 through the MN Child Care Assistance Program

Acknowledgments The Minnesota Department of Human Services and Wilder Research thank the study Advisory Committee for its assistance in refining the study questions, the sampling design and the survey instrument and in reviewing the preliminary report. Advisory Committee members were: Betty Cooke (Minnesota Department of Education), Daryl Coppoletti (Greater Minneapolis Day Care Association), Liz Davis (University of Minnesota), Sue Dion (Concordia University), Betty Emarita (Ready 4 K), Beth Haney (Children’s Defense Fund), Nancy Johnson (Greater Minneapolis Day Care Association), Nancy Jost (West Central Initiative), Ann Kaner-Roth (Child Care WORKS), Jane Kretzman (Bush Foundation), Anita Larson (Hennepin County), Nancy Latimer (The McKnight Foundation), Carol Miller (Hennepin County), Chris Moore (Greater Minneapolis Day Care Association), Zoe Nicholie (Ready 4 K), Sandy Simar (Minnesota Department of Education), Maiya Thao (Early Childhood Resource and Training Center), Kathryn Tout (Child Trends) and Sonia Velez (Early Childhood Resource and Training Center).

Thank you also to the families and FFN caregivers who responded to the surveys.


Contents Summary ............................................................................................................................. 1

Introduction....................................................................................................................... 11

Background................................................................................................................... 11

Study goals.................................................................................................................... 13

Study questions ............................................................................................................. 13

Methods......................................................................................................................... 14

Survey samples ............................................................................................................. 15

Child care and other definitions in this report .............................................................. 16

Instrument development................................................................................................ 18

Strengths and limitations of survey results ................................................................... 19

Report structure............................................................................................................. 19

Statewide trends and costs ................................................................................................ 20

Profile of Child Care Assistance Program households using family, friend, and neighbor care...................................................................................................................... 24

Respondent and household characteristics.................................................................... 24

Employment and household financial information....................................................... 26

Children in household ................................................................................................... 29

Profile of all child care used by Child Care Assistance Program households using FFN care............................................................................................................................ 31

Child care arrangements ............................................................................................... 31

Child care expenses....................................................................................................... 39

Other types of help paying for child care...................................................................... 42

Child care choices ......................................................................................................... 43

Child care barriers......................................................................................................... 47

Parent interaction and satisfaction with caregiver in primary arrangement ................. 48

Work-related child care problems................................................................................. 50

Profile of FFN caregivers serving Child Care Assistance Program families .................... 53

Caregiver demographics ............................................................................................... 53

FFN caregiver background and language ..................................................................... 55

Demographics of FFN caregiver households................................................................ 57

FFN caregiver’s relationship to child ........................................................................... 59


Contents (continued) Profile of children in FFN care paid for by CCAP .............................................................. 60

Demographics ............................................................................................................... 60

Special needs................................................................................................................. 62

Profile of FFN care paid for by CCAP ............................................................................. 63

Number of children receiving child care assistance in care.......................................... 63

Child care schedule and location for all children.......................................................... 64

Child care schedule and location for randomly selected children receiving child care assistance............................................................................................................... 65

Child care payment ....................................................................................................... 67

Quality of FFN care paid for by CCAP ............................................................................ 68

Experience and training of CCAP FFN caregivers....................................................... 68

Reliability (randomly selected child’s FFN caregiver)................................................. 74

Caregiver relationship with child and parents .............................................................. 76

Activities for children’s cognitive, social, emotional and physical development ........ 80

Television and videos ................................................................................................... 84

Ways of dealing with misbehavior ............................................................................... 86

FFN caregiver needs and supports.................................................................................... 88

Sources of ideas and information.................................................................................. 88

Sources of encouragement and support ........................................................................ 89

Problems in providing care ........................................................................................... 90

FFN caregiving resources and information, and interest in licensing .............................. 91

Access to caregiving resources and information .......................................................... 91

Interest in licensing ..................................................................................................... 100

Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 102


Figures 1. Survey samples and response rates ........................................................................... 16

2. Minnesota FFN caregivers registered with CCAP 1997-2003 ................................. 20

3. Number of CCAP children in legal non-licensed FFN care in Minnesota by year by region (excluding legally non-licensed school-age care programs) .................... 21

4. Number of children in legal non-licensed care for Anoka, Brown, Hennepin, and Nicollet counties ....................................................................................................... 22

5. Percent of MFIP children receiving CCAP by type of care...................................... 23

6. Respondent and household demographics ................................................................ 25

7. Household income by number of people in household, 2003................................... 27

8. Work activities of parents during the previous week by age of randomly selected child. 28

9. Work activities of mothers by age of randomly selected child................................. 28

10. Parents and employment status by age of randomly selected child.......................... 29

11. Ages of children, age 12 and under only .................................................................. 30

12. Number of children age 12 or younger in household by number of parents in household .................................................................................................................. 30

13. Number of child care arrangements for all children by location .............................. 31

14. Number of child care arrangements for randomly selected children by age ............ 32

15. All types of child care used by age of randomly selected child................................ 33

16. Primary child care arrangement for randomly selected child by location ................ 34

17. Primary child care arrangement for randomly selected child by age of child .......... 34

18. Number of hours in child care per week by location for randomly selected child ........ 35

19. Mean hours in child care per week ........................................................................... 36

20. Child care schedule by age of randomly selected child............................................ 37

21. Types of arrangement by child care schedule........................................................... 37

22. Backup arrangements for children who are sick....................................................... 38

23. Backup arrangements for school-age children when there is no school on a regular weekday ........................................................................................................ 39

24. Average total weekly expenses of child care per household (parents’ out-of-pocket expenses for all children).................................................................................................. 40

25. Weekly expense of child care (parents’ out-of-pocket expenses) by household income . 40

26. Weekly out-of-pocket expenses of child care for randomly selected child by child’s age ................................................................................................................. 41


Figures (continued) 27. Help with child care costs by age of randomly selected child.................................. 42

28. Households that seriously considered other kinds of arrangements for randomly selected child............................................................................................................. 43

29. Kind of arrangements seriously considered, by age of randomly selected child........... 44

30. Current primary arrangement by types of arrangements seriously considered......... 44

31. Households that had no realistic options other than their current arrangement by the type of primary child care arrangement .............................................................. 45

32. Reasons people choose primary child care arrangement .......................................... 46

33. How people learned about the arrangement they currently use most ....................... 47

34. MFIP Longitudinal Study: Child care barriers by type of care ................................ 48

35. Interaction between parents and caregiver in primary arrangement ......................... 49

36. Parents’ quality and satisfaction ratings for randomly selected child’s primary child care arrangement.............................................................................................. 50

37. Work-related child care problems by type of primary arrangement......................... 51

38. Work-related child care problems by age of randomly selected child...................... 52

39. Kind of problem that caused loss of time from work ............................................... 52

40. FFN caregiver demographics.................................................................................... 54

41. FFN caregiver background and language ................................................................. 56

42. Characteristics of FFN households ........................................................................... 58

43. Household income of FFN caregivers serving CCAP families ................................ 59

44. FFN caregiver’s relationship to randomly selected child ......................................... 59

45. Gender and age of children in FFN care................................................................... 61

46. Race or ethnicity and language of randomly selected children in FFN care by child’s age ................................................................................................................. 61

47. Special needs of randomly selected children by child’s age..................................... 62

48. Number of children receiving child care assistance in FFN child care .................... 63

49. Child care times and places (all care) by location .................................................... 64

50. Profile of FFN care by age of randomly selected child receiving child care assistance................................................................................................................... 66

51. Child care places for randomly selected child receiving child care assistance by relationship of caregiver to child .............................................................................. 67

52. FFN caregiver education and English language proficiency .................................... 69


Figures (continued) 53. Number of years providing child care ...................................................................... 70

54. FFN caregivers’ professional child care experience................................................. 70

55. FFN caregiver motivation, by relationship to child ..................................................... 71

56. FFN parenting and child care training and education............................................... 73

57. Indicators of FFN caregiver reliability by relationship to age of child..................... 75

58. Other indicators of caregiver reliability.................................................................... 75

59. Characteristics of relationship between FFN caregiver and child ............................ 77

60. Interaction between FFN caregivers and parents...................................................... 79

61. Relationship between FFN caregiver and parents .................................................... 79

62. Children’s developmental activities by age of child................................................. 81

63. Activities for children’s social and emotional development..................................... 84

64. Television and videos on a typical day by age of child ............................................ 85

65. Ways of dealing with misbehavior by age of child................................................... 86

66. FFN caregivers’ usual sources of help...................................................................... 88

67. FFN caregivers’ sources of encouragement and emotional support by location ...... 89

68. Usual problems FFN caregivers encounter............................................................... 90

69. Resources that FFN caregivers would find helpful by location................................ 93

70. Helpfulness of government subsidized food program .............................................. 94

71. Information on child care that FFN caregivers would find helpful by location ....... 95

72. Likelihood of using various formats ......................................................................... 97

73. Importance of getting materials in a language other than English............................ 97

74. Likelihood of FFN caregivers using various locations for learning opportunities ... 99

75. FFN caregivers’ barriers to attending learning opportunities ................................... 99

76. FFN caregivers’ interest in getting licensed as a child care provider by location .. 100

77. FFN caregivers’ interest in getting licensed as a child care provider by FFN caregiver’s relationship to child.............................................................................. 101

78. FFN caregivers’ main reason for interest or lack of interest in becoming licensed..... 101

Family, friends and neighbors caring for children 1 December 2005 through the MN Child Care Assistance Program

Summary Family, friends and neighbors (FFN) are a large and growing part of child care in Minnesota. Through the Minnesota Child Care Assistance Program (CCAP), these caregivers, also known as legal non-licensed providers, serve more than 30,000 children in families with low incomes. However, little is known about these FFN caregivers, the quality of their care and the most effective strategies for offering and providing them training and support. Because many of these caregivers may not consider themselves to be professionals, initiatives appropriate for informal caregivers must be developed and marketed.

Paying for child care can be difficult as families look for jobs, go to work or go to school to prepare for work. CCAP helps families in these situations pay child care costs for all children, ages 12 and younger, and for children ages 13 and 14 who have special needs. Families may choose to have the care of only one of their children fully or partially covered. For example, they may choose to access CCAP for center care and pay the full cost of a family, friend or neighbor provider for either another child or another part of the child’s day. Families are required to pay the portion of child care costs CCAP does not cover and must cooperate with child support for all children in the family.

Families have the right to choose their own child care providers who they trust to meet their needs and who will provide a safe place for children to play and learn. To receive child care assistance, child care must be provided by a legal provider over the age of 18. Families can choose from several different types of care, including care provided by friends or relatives, child care centers or licensed family child care providers. Families may choose more than one child care provider to care for their children. If a child becomes sick, a family may not be allowed to use a regular child care provider so a backup provider is necessary to care for a sick child on short notice.

This study presents new survey data describing FFN caregivers registered with CCAP and the child care used by families receiving child care subsidies in two Twin Cities metropolitan counties and three rural counties. The telephone survey included 243 households (one adult per household answered general questions about child care use and experiences and provided child care information for one randomly selected child) and 213 caregivers who provided information about their caregiving and one randomly selected child in their care. It also includes data about FFN child care from published reports and administrative data.

The findings are useful for devising outreach and support strategies to improve the quality of FFN care in Minnesota. The results, however, should not be generalized to all CCAP families or to all FFN caregivers. The survey included only CCAP families using registered FFN and FFN caregivers registered with CCAP from two metropolitan counties and three


rural counties. In addition, because the survey includes just two metropolitan counties and three rural counties, the results may not be representative of all FFN caregivers in CCAP or all CCAP participants using FFN statewide.

The scope of subsidized FFN care in Minnesota is steadily growing.1

From 1997 to 2003, the number of FFN caregivers registered with CCAP grew sharply from 4,784 to 13,270. The biggest growth took place from 1997 to 1999.

From 1997 to 2003, the number of CCAP children served by registered FFN caregivers (not including registered child care centers) more than tripled from about 9,244 to about 30,094 children per month.

In state fiscal year 2004, about 8,741 legal non-licensed providers collected approximately 19-30 percent of the CCAP total expenditures of $165 million, including federal, state and local funds (excluding administration).

Relatives, primarily grandmothers, outnumber non-relative caregivers. In the five counties included in the study:

Fifty-one percent of FFN caregivers are the grandparent; 16 percent are a friend of the family; 14 percent are an aunt or uncle; 12 percent are neighbors, acquaintances or babysitters; and 6 percent are other relatives.

FFN care is more likely to be provided by grandparents or other relatives for children under age 6 and by non-relatives for children ages 6 to 12.

About half of the CCAP FFN caregivers in this study have children under age 12 living in the home, and about half of those parents take care of their own children all or most of the time while providing FFN care.

A little over one-third have a paying job in addition to child care, compared with 60 percent of all FFN caregivers in the 2004 statewide household child survey.2

1 These counts of FFN caregivers and children are based on ACF 800 reports, excluding registered centers. 2 Chase, R., et al. 2005. Family, Friend and Neighbor Caregivers, Results of the 2004 Minnesota

Statewide Household Child Care Survey. St. Paul, MN: Minnesota Department of Human Services.


Eighty percent of FFN caregivers receive payment, on average $42 per week for the randomly selected child.3 Non-relative caregivers are more likely than relative caregivers to receive payment (89 percent versus 77 percent) and, on average, receive much higher payment ($59 versus $33 per week). In contrast, about 24 percent of all FFN caregivers in the 2004 statewide household child care survey have income from the child care they provide.

In the study counties, surveyed households who use CCAP-registered FFN caregivers are primarily single-parent families with one or two preschool children.

Eighty-four percent of surveyed households live at or below 200 percent of the federal poverty level, including 43 percent at or below the federal poverty level.

A little over one-third of the surveyed families are currently in the Minnesota Family Investment Program (MFIP).

On average, households pay $67 per week out-of-pocket for all child care. For only those households who have out-of-pocket child care expenses, the average payment for all children is $95 weekly. Out-of-pocket expenses are payments made by the parent or anyone in the household including CCAP copayments and costs above the maximum reimbursement rate.

FFN care is the most common but not the only child care arrangement of households using subsidized FFN care.

Slightly over half of the CCAP households surveyed use one child care arrangement; 35 percent use two, and 13 percent use three or more.

For 59 percent of the randomly selected children, the primary child care arrangement is FFN care in the child’s home (35 percent) or in someone else’s home (24 percent), followed by center-based care (26 percent), licensed family child care (10 percent), supervised activities (5 percent) and self care (1 percent). (For each household surveyed, the parent provided detailed information about one child selected at random. While all the CCAP households in this survey use FFN care, 79 percent of the randomly selected children in those households use FFN care as one of their child care arrangements.)4

3 Not all of the FFN caregivers in this survey are paid because the randomly selected child may not be

receiving CCAP or the caregiver may be registered with CCAP but not serving any CCAP children at the time of the survey.

4 Families can choose to pay for one or more types of care for a child with CCAP, and children in a household receiving CCAP may be in different types of care.


In the study counties, on average, children spend just under 39 hours per week in child care.

On average, children in licensed family child care spend the most time there (31 hours), followed by FFN care (24-26 hours) and center-based care (24 hours).

In terms of schedule, 95 percent of children are in standard weekday care (Monday-Friday, 7 a.m. to 6 p.m.). Almost half of children in this survey are also in child care during the evenings (from 6 p.m. to 10 p.m.) and almost half on the weekends. About one-quarter of children in this survey are also in child care in the early mornings (before 7 a.m.) and about one-quarter at night (after 10 p.m.). Altogether, almost 70 percent of the children are in care during standard work hours as well as at other times.

Children are more likely to be in FFN care if their child care schedule includes early morning, evening, late night or weekend hours.

In the study counties, quality and cost are top reasons for choosing child care.

Data from the Minnesota Family Investment Program Longitudinal Study5 suggest that two of the primary advantages of FFN care are parents’ perceptions of cost and of quality. Another primary reason for using FFN care may be the hours that parents work.

In this survey, various factors related to quality are the most commonly cited reason for choosing a primary child care arrangement (48 percent), followed by location (25 percent), the preference for a family member to provide care (23 percent) and trust (21 percent).

Many FFN caregivers registered with CCAP in the study counties provide full time child care at times when licensed care is not readily available.

Over half of FFN caregivers provide child care for 40 or more hours per week; an additional 12 percent provide care 30 to 39 hours per week; 17 percent provide care for 20 to 29 hours per week and 8 percent provide care 11 to 19 hours per week. About 10 percent provide care 10 hours a week or less.

On average, FFN caregivers registered with CCAP in the study counties provide care for about 38 hours per week, double the average number of hours per week of FFN in the statewide household child survey.6

5 Minnesota Family Investment Program Longitudinal Study, Minnesota Department of Human

Services, 2002 6 Chase, R. et al. 2005. Child Care Use in Minnesota, Report of the 2004 Statewide Household Child

Care Survey. St. Paul, MN: Minnesota Department of Human Services.


Most FFN caregivers provide care both during and outside standard weekday hours (7 a.m. to 6 p.m.).

FFN caregivers in the rural study counties are more likely than caregivers in the metropolitan area study counties to provide care in the evening (82 percent versus 68 percent), at night (69 percent versus 50 percent) and on weekends (80 percent versus 69 percent).

About three-quarters of the FFN caregivers provide care to the randomly selected child at least five days a week, and about three-quarters provide care five to 10 hours per day in a typical week. This varies little by the age of the child.

FFN caregivers registered with CCAP provide child care to help out family or friends and because they have close relationships with the children in their care.

The most common reason for providing child care is to help a family member or friend (54 percent), followed by liking children or thinking child care is fun (22 percent) and wanting to provide safe, high quality care (21 percent).

Twenty-three percent of non-relative caregivers registered with CCAP say that they provide care in order to earn money, compared to 13 percent of relative caregivers.

Nearly all the FFN caregivers “strongly agree” (65 percent) or “agree” (31 percent) that they would watch the child under their care for as long as the parent wanted them to, and “strongly agree” (55 percent) or “agree” (40 percent) that they often feel that taking care of the child is the best part of their day.

Seventy-eight percent say they frequently talk about the child’s daily activities with parents; 80 percent feel that the match between their child-rearing values and the parents’ is excellent or good, and 86 percent say that they and the parents cooperate and work together very well to make sure the children’s needs are met.


Most FFN caregivers registered with CCAP in the study counties get their child care information and support from informal sources, not from formal training.

On average, these FFN caregivers have been providing FFN care for 6.7 years.

Most (81 percent) say they are self-taught about parenting and child care through reading books or watching educational videos on those subjects and most commonly use educational television, fact sheets or pamphlets, and the public library to learn about child care.

FFN caregivers primarily get encouragement and emotional support from the parents of the children in their care (90 percent). Other main sources of support are a family member (85 percent), friends (77 percent) and from other people providing child care (50 percent).

From a list of possible problems when providing care, CCAP FFN caregivers most commonly cite housing, food or utilities that make providing child care difficult (16 percent rated as “a big problem”), followed closely by caregivers not having enough time for themselves (14 percent), disagreements with parents about paying for child care (13 percent), long or irregular work hours (12 percent) and not having enough toys or things to do (11 percent). The least common “big problem” is meeting the special needs of a child (3 percent). Overall, more FFN caregivers providing care to children who receive CCAP report problems than FFN caregivers statewide.

Sixteen percent of these FFN caregivers serving CCAP families have been employed (15 percent) or currently are employed (1 percent) as a teacher’s aide or child care teacher in a licensed child care center or program.

Fourteen percent of them are currently licensed (6 percent) or were licensed in the past (8 percent) as family child care providers.

In terms of formal education and training, 40 percent have at least some college education; about half have participated in parent education; and more than one-third have participated in a child care training program through a church, community organization or government agency. About one-quarter have taken college classes in child development, nutrition or health and safety; and about 40 percent have gone to workshops on those topics.


FFN caregivers registered with CCAP in the study counties report that they use a wide range of activities to encourage children’s cognitive, social, emotional and physical development.

For children under 2 years, the most common developmental activities (more than 90 percent daily or most days) are hugging and kissing the child; playing with baby toys or household items; talking, cooing, telling stories or singing to the child; and playing games like peek-a-boo or games with the child’s fingers and toes.

For children ages 2 to 5, FFN caregivers most often talk, tell stories or sing to the child (daily or most days for more than 90 percent of children); practice language or math with child, including reciting the alphabet, playing counting games or doing puzzles (79 percent daily or most days); and have the child sing or read along with them or teach the child songs or stories (76 percent daily or most days).

Children ages 2 to 5 most often play with toys or household items that can help them learn hand-eye coordination (82 percent daily or most days); play “pretend” games by using toys and dolls, by dressing up or by acting out roles or stories (73 percent daily or most days); and play outdoors, running, climbing, jumping or playing sports (73 percent daily or most days).

For children ages 6 to 12, caregivers most often talk, tell stories or sing to the child (80 percent daily or most days) and have the child sing or read along with them, and teach the child songs or stories (71 percent daily or most days).

Children ages 6 to 12 most often play with other children (86 percent daily or most days) and play outdoors — running, climbing, jumping or playing sports (81 percent daily or most days).

Most FFN caregivers registered with CCAP in the study counties are interested in accessing resources for more child care supplies and materials, and many are interested in obtaining child care information.

FFN caregivers say that the most helpful types of child care resources would be small grants to pay for books, games and materials (rated “very helpful” by 72 percent); a program to get safety equipment and supplies (rated “very helpful” by 55 percent); and workshops to help them learn about caring for children (rated “very helpful” by 52 percent).

Almost two-thirds of respondents say that they would find it “very helpful” to have access to a government-subsidized food program to get nutritious food for the children in their care at no cost or low cost.


The information caregivers would most like to receive is how to help children learn and do well in school (rated as “very helpful” by 79 percent), followed by child safety (69 percent), children’s nutrition (68 percent) and dealing with challenges like speech problems and learning disabilities (66 percent).

Slightly over three-fourths say they would be “very likely” to use kits or packets with supplies and materials that fit the ages of the children in their care. About 68 percent say they are “very likely” to use books, and 61 percent say they are “very likely” to use videos or DVDs.

Schools, libraries and community centers are the best places to provide learning opportunities for FFN caregivers registered with CCAP in the study counties.

Neighborhood schools (71 percent), local libraries (69 percent), and local community centers (65 percent) top the list of locations where caregivers interested in learning opportunities would “very likely” go to participate.

FFN caregivers registered with CCAP in the study counties are quite interested in becoming licensed family child care providers.

About half of FFN caregivers who serve CCAP families in the study counties are “very interested” (31 percent) or “somewhat interested” (21 percent) in becoming a licensed family child care provider. That compares with 18 percent of FFN caregivers in general who are “very interested” (7 percent) or “somewhat interested” (11 percent) in becoming a licensed provider.7

Caregivers in the metro area study counties and non-relative caregivers are more likely than caregivers in the rural study counties and relative caregivers to be interested in becoming a licensed child care provider.

7 Chase, R., et al. 2005. Family, Friend and Neighbor Caregivers, Results of the 2004 Minnesota



Recommendations

Based on the results of this study and discussion with the researchers and study advisory committee, these recommendations from the Department of Human Services take a CCAP-specific view of FFN care, building on research recommendations for supporting FFN caregivers and improving FFN care statewide. (To review the recommendations arising from the statewide FFN survey, see footnote 7.)

1. Recognize and respect the inherent strengths of FFN care in all its diversity, while at the same time improving the quality of care.

FFN care is a vital resource for families. CCAP FFN caregivers provide care nearly full time (38 hours per week). This is twice as much care, on average, than FFN caregivers generally. Policymakers should recognize cultural differences and the essential voluntary and personal relationships of FFN caregiving when attempting to improve the quality of FFN care.

2. Support Minnesota Department of Human Services (DHS) efforts to ensure that child care quality improvement activities are open, inclusive and accessible to all FFN caregivers.

Study results indicate strong interest among CCAP FFN caregivers in becoming licensed family child care providers, much more interest than among FFN caregivers generally. Provide support and incentives to enable CCAP FFN caregivers to participate in Minnesota’s professional development system, Child Care Resource & Referral system training and grant programs, tribal supports for child care, and initiatives to support school readiness in child care settings. In particular, provide access to the food and nutrition program, which strongly interests CCAP FFN caregivers.

3. Conduct targeted outreach that offers information and support options to FFN caregivers wherever they may be.

CCAP FFN caregivers, compared with FFN caregivers generally, express stronger interest in resources and information and a higher likelihood of using those resources.

DHS should continue to support targeted outreach efforts to CCAP FFN caregivers and the families who use them, devising outreach strategies specific to this group of families. Framing the outreach around school readiness for younger children and school success for older children would resonate with CCAP FFN caregivers.


4. Offer learning opportunities through a neighborhood-based approach that links FFN caregivers to resources, advice, knowledge and peer support.

CCAP FFN caregivers, like FFN caregivers generally, seem to prefer familiar, established places for learning, such as neighborhood schools, libraries and community centers. Use resources (books, games, materials and safety supplies) as incentives for participation, and pay attention to language, culture and literacy issues.

Facilitate peer support, providing opportunities for caregivers to socialize and to connect with other caregivers. Early Childhood Family Education, for example, could tailor classes for CCAP FFN participants and could also serve as a source of parent support since CCAP FFN caregivers frequently turn to parents for sources of ideas and information.


Introduction Background

The 1999 statewide household child care survey, Child Care Use in Minnesota, found that thousands of children in Minnesota are cared for by family, friends or neighbors (FFN) while their parents work or attend school.8 Nearly one-third of families rely on relatives, most often grandparents, for care in any given week. Almost one in five use friends and neighbors. Nationally, the use of this type of child care decreased in the later part of the 20th century.

Paying for child care can be difficult as families look for jobs, go to work or go to school to prepare for work. The Minnesota Child Care Assistance Program (CCAP) helps families in these situations pay child care costs for all children, ages 12 and younger, and for children ages 13 and 14 who have special needs. Families may choose to have only one child’s care fully or partially covered. For example, they may choose to access CCAP for licensed care and pay the full cost of a family, friend or neighbor provider for another child or another part of the child's day. Families are required to pay the portion of child care costs CCAP does not cover and must cooperate with child support for all children in the family.

Families have the right to choose their own child care providers who they trust to meet their needs and who will provide a safe place for children to play and learn. To receive child care assistance, child care must be provided by a legal provider over the age of 18. Families can choose from several different types of care, including care provided by friends or relatives, child care centers or licensed family child care providers. Families may choose more than one child care provider to care for their children. If a child becomes sick, a family may not be allowed to use a regular child care provider so many parents register a backup provider to care for a sick child on short notice.

In Minnesota, FFN caregivers can register with their counties to receive child care assistance payments without being licensed providers (thus the use of the term “legal non-licensed child care”). In the past few years, state and local policymakers and early childhood advocates have expressed growing interest and concern over the use of FFN child care paid for with state child care assistance.

Interest in and concern about the increased use of FFN care have arisen for a number of reasons. Policymakers, licensed providers and advocates recognize that FFN care is 8 Chase, R. and Shelton, E. 2001. Child Care Use in Minnesota, Report of the 1999 Statewide

Household Child Care Survey. St. Paul, MN: Wilder Research.


sometimes the only care option for many families, especially those who work non-standard hours or live in low-income or rural communities. For other families, FFN care is the setting that they feel is best for their child. This may be true for the grandmother who cares for an infant grandchild, an aunt who is familiar with the unique needs of a child with special needs, or a friend who has the same cultural background as the children for whom she provides care. At the same time, concern exists over the quality and stability of the care provided in some unlicensed settings, particularly when public dollars are being used to support this care.

Unlicensed care has been eligible for reimbursement from CCAP for many years through an exception to the licensing statute. A legal non-licensed provider is limited to providing care for relatives and children from one other family. The number of children the provider may care for at one time is not limited, though an unsuccessful experiment with number limits was enacted in 1997 and repealed in 1999. To receive payment under CCAP, a legal non-licensed provider must be registered with the county in which the provider resides. The state rule governing child care assistance establishes minimum requirements for registration and permits counties to set their own guidelines. During the 2003 legislative session, a statewide requirement for background checks was added to the statute, the reimbursement rate for legal non-licensed providers was decreased from 90 percent to 80 percent of the maximum reimbursement available to licensed family child care providers and payments were changed to cover only hourly rates.

In 2002, the use of FFN care among families receiving child care assistance varied widely across Minnesota. In 21 counties, less than 25 percent of CCAP children were in FFN settings; in 60 counties, 25 to 50 percent of CCAP children were in these settings; and in the remaining six counties, usage rates exceeded 50 percent. Counties with 50 percent or fewer children in FFN settings were evenly distributed across the state; however, the six counties with usage rates above 50 percent were all rural, with five found along the state’s northern border. In addition, since the implementation of welfare reform in 1997, increases in the use of FFN care among families receiving child care assistance have been dramatic in some counties, but this does not appear to be the case across all of Minnesota.


Study goals

The Minnesota Department of Human Services and the early childhood and school-age care community want to ensure that CCAP families are able to choose the care that best meets the needs of the parents and also supports optimal development for each child. This parental choice is guaranteed in the federal legislation governing the CCAP program and supports a system that respects parents’ ability to choose a care arrangement that is best for them and their child. However, little is known in Minnesota about the characteristics of FFN child care providers who serve CCAP recipients, the quality of their care and the most effective strategies for offering and providing training and support. Because many of these caregivers may not consider themselves to be professionals, training and quality improvement initiatives developed for licensed child care providers may not be appropriate.

It is also important to recognize that parental choice in child care arrangements requires true choice among a variety of qualified child care options. Efforts to strengthen FFN care will help strengthen parental choice while ensuring that children receive quality care in whatever settings families choose.

This study is intended to enhance:

The understanding of FFN care and its use by families receiving child care subsidies

The ability of those working in child care and related fields to adequately address policy issues related to FFN care

The strategies for FFN outreach and support

Study questions

1. How many registered (legal non-licensed) family, friend and neighbor caregivers currently provide child care to families receiving child care subsidies? How has this changed over time?

2. How much is being spent by counties on registered (legal non-licensed) FFN child care?

3. What are the characteristics of registered FFN providers serving CCAP families by age, gender, race, language, immigrant status, household structure, household income, relationship to children in care, education level, training in early childhood, etc.? What motivates them to be providers? How long have they been providing care? What are their incentives or disincentives for continuing to provide care?


4. How many registered FFN (legal non-licensed) providers serving CCAP families are working in order to meet MFIP work requirements?

5. Why do families receiving child care subsidies choose registered family, friend and neighbor care over licensed care? How much do they pay out of pocket? What are the characteristics of the children, such as age, race/ethnicity and special needs? What other child care arrangements do they have? What is the quality of their relationship with their FFN providers?

6. How many MFIP families are using legal non-licensed care, both registered and not registered?

7. What is the level of health, safety and quality of child care provided to CCAP families by registered family, friend and neighbor providers? What activities do they engage in day to day? How many hours are children cared for in a typical day? How do providers handle discipline? What are their biggest challenges?

8. Are registered family, friend and neighbor providers serving CCAP families linked to other early childhood services and networks, including child care resource and referral agencies? What mix of strategies would improve links between these providers and other early childhood services and supports? Are family support strategies the most appropriate approach? What training resources would they like and in what form? What information about caring for children interests them? Are those serving children with special needs receiving or interested in receiving support? If licensing interests them, what are the incentives, disincentives and barriers?

Methods

This study was carried out jointly by the Minnesota Department of Human Services (DHS) and Wilder Research under the umbrella of the Minnesota Child Care Policy Research Partnership (MCCPRP) with funding from the McKnight Foundation and DHS. The MCCPRP is carrying out a set of six studies on critical child care policy issues under a grant from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Both DHS and Wilder Research are members of the partnership. The study was implemented with the assistance of other MCCPRP partners and a study advisory committee, whose membership included community members representing CCAP families and FFN providers, child care advocates and policymakers (see Acknowledgments). The study advisory committee helped to refine the study questions and methods, explored study results and implications, shaped policy recommendations and advised on dissemination strategies.


Sources of study data include published studies and reports, Child Care Assistance Program 801 administrative data reported to the federal government and survey data from the Minnesota Department of Human Service’s Minnesota Family Investment Program Longitudinal Study and the Wilder Research 1999-2000 Minnesota Household Child Care Survey.

This study also collected new data via telephone surveys with FFN caregivers serving CCAP families (July 2004-February 2005) and CCAP families served by registered FFN caregivers (July-November 2004). Researchers interviewed one adult (age 18 or older) per household. For the household survey, the respondent answered general questions about child care use and experiences and provided child care information for one randomly selected child. For the caregiver survey, the respondent answered general questions about the child care activities, resources and interests and provided detailed information for one randomly selected child from the children cared for by the FFN caregiver.

Finally, qualitative and quantitative data from the Minnesota Child Care Policy Research Partnership inform the interpretation of the analyses of administrative and survey data. These data include a series of interviews with parents using FFN care, surveys of FFN caregivers and an observational study of the quality of care provided by FFN caregivers.9

Survey samples

Random samples were drawn from lists provided by Hennepin, Anoka and Koochiching counties and from the Minnesota Department of Human Services for Brown and Nicollet counties, as shown in Figure 1. Anoka, Brown, Hennepin and Nicollet Counties were chosen because they were partners in other MCCPRP studies. Koochiching County was added in order to increase the sample size of FFN caregivers from a Greater Minnesota county. The Hennepin sample size is in proportion to the Hennepin CCAP population in the metro area, while the Anoka sample size is in proportion to Anoka plus the other metropolitan counties.

9 Ceglowski, D. (forthcoming) Child Care Through the Eyes of Parents, Children and Child Care

Providers: A Series of Briefing Papers. St. Paul, MN: Minnesota Department of Human Services. Tout, K. (forthcoming) Observations of Family, Friend and Neighbor Care in Minnesota. St. Paul,

MN: Minnesota Department of Human Services.


1. Survey samples and response rates

Number of CCAP

cases Number sampled

Number eligible

Number completes

Response rate

Households

Hennepin 5,395 320 146 97 66.4%

Anoka 4,033 280 74 54 73.0%

Brown 245 195 64 49 76.6%

Nicollet 246 200 57 43 75.4%

Total 9,919 995 341 243 71.2%

FFN caregivers

Hennepin 4,298 320 135 102 75.6%

Anoka 3,219 250 81 60 74.1%

Brown 47 47 16 15 93.8%

Nicollet 69 69 27 23 85.2%

Koochiching 32 32 19 13 68.4%

Total 7,665 718 278 213 76.6%

Source: CCAP survey of caregivers and parents Note: “Eligible” indicates that household was located and using CCAP for FFN care at the time of the survey and that caregivers were located, providing care and being paid with CCAP at the time of the survey. FFN caregivers from Koochiching were added to the survey to increase the sample size from greater Minnesota.

Child care and other definitions in this report

“Child care” is defined as the time children spend when they are not with a parent or at school during the two weeks prior to the survey. It includes all the times during the day or night. Interviewers read respondents a list of different kinds of child care arrangements, programs children attend and people who care for children, and respondents stated which ones they used at least once in each of the last two weeks for a randomly selected child. If the child was on vacation during the previous two weeks, responses referred to the two weeks before vacation. The types of care in the survey include:

Center-based care, which includes Head Start, a child care center, a nursery school or preschool or a pre-kindergarten program, not including child care or babysitting in either the child’s home or someone else’s home.

A program that provided before-school or after-school care outside the child’s home.


Child care or babysitting in the respondent’s home or the child’s other parent’s home by someone other than the child’s parents. This could include a relative, an older sibling, a neighbor, or a nanny, as long as they are age 13 or older. (The FFN caregiver survey included only caregivers age 18 or older, however.)

Child care or babysitting in someone else’s home during the day, evening or overnight, either a licensed family child care home or not.

Supervised activities or lessons at a recreation center, library, church, camp, gym or a sports facility. During the summer this included an organized summer program, such as a recreation program or summer day camp, or overnight camp.

Self care or time during which the children took care of themselves or stayed alone with a brother or sister who is 12 or younger on a regular basis, even for a small amount of time.

In this study, child care excludes care provided by medical or social services, such as personal care attendants, doctors or nurses, group home staff, respite care providers or case managers.

“Family, friend and neighbor (FFN) care” includes informal care in the child’s home or in someone else’s home. If the care is in someone else’s home, the care is defined as FFN care if it is reported as not being in a licensed family child care home. For the household survey, FFN caregivers include grandparents, aunts, siblings, cousins and non-relative caregivers ages 13 or older. For the caregiver survey, the respondents are ages 18 or older.

The “primary arrangement” is the type reported to be used most often for the randomly selected child at least once a week in each of the last two weeks.

“Regular” means used at least once a week during each of the last two weeks.

“Non-standard schedule” means child care that occurs before 7 a.m., after 6 p.m. or on a weekend.

“Parent” is the survey respondent — the adult in the household most knowledgeable about the child’s care. In some cases the respondent is not the child’s parent but is an aunt or grandparent functioning as the child’s primary caregiver, and is included in this report as a “parent.” In a very few cases, the respondent is not a caregiver or the primary caregiver, in which case the respondent is not considered a parent for the purposes of this report.


Parents are classified as “working” if during the previous week they reported themselves as working for pay at a job (including self-employed), holding a job but not at work (such as on vacation, jury duty or sick), looking for work or going to school. Respondents are classified as “not working” if during the previous week they reported themselves as being in an unpaid job training program, at home full time or unable to work because of a disability. Employment information is also reported for the spouse or partner of the respondent only when the spouse/partner is related to the randomly selected child in the same way as the respondent (e.g., parent, grandparent or uncle).

“Households with low incomes” are those whose annual income is at or below 200 percent of the federal poverty guideline for a family of their size. Because the survey asked for income in ranges rather than exact income, this is a high estimate of the number of households with low incomes.

“Out-of-pocket expenses” for child care are payments made by the parent or anyone in the household for the care of one or more children during the previous week. Parents who receive subsidy through the Child Care Assistance Program (CCAP) and have income above 75 percent of the poverty guidelines would have out-of-pocket expenses amounting to part but not all of the cost of the care.

“Metro study counties” refers to Anoka and Hennepin counties.

“Rural study counties” refers to Brown, Koochiching and Nicollet counties.

“Metro” refers to the seven county Twin Cities metropolitan area.

“Greater Minnesota” refers to the remaining 80 counties.

Instrument development

Researchers developed and pre-tested the survey instruments with the assistance of an advisory group made up of state, county and local child care professionals, policymakers and social service representatives (see Acknowledgments). The household and caregiver survey instruments were adapted from the instruments developed by Wilder Research for the 2004 household child care use studies.10

Both instruments were translated into Spanish, Hmong and Somali.

10 Chase, R. et al. 2005. Child Care Use in Minnesota, Report of the 2004 Statewide Household Child

Care Survey. St. Paul, MN: Minnesota Department of Human Services. Chase, R., et al. 2005. Family, Friend and Neighbor Caregivers, Results of the 2004 Minnesota



Strengths and limitations of survey results

The results in this survey accurately describe FFN caregivers caring for children through the Minnesota Child Care Assistance Program (CCAP), those children and their families. The results, however, are based on surveys with CCAP families using registered FFN and with FFN caregivers registered with CCAP from two metropolitan area and three rural counties. The results should not be generalized to all CCAP families and may not be representative of FFN caregivers in CCAP or of CCAP participants using FFN statewide.

Given the growing challenges in conducting telephone surveys, this survey had good response rates, ranging from 66.4 percent to 93.8 percent at the county level and overall 71.2 percent for household sample and 76.6 percent for the FFN caregiver sample. The number of completed surveys provides a margin of error of about 6.1 percent (plus or minus) for the household sample and 6.5 percent for the FFN caregiver sample. Sub-samples have higher sampling errors, for example, plus or minus 10 percent for a sub-sample of 100 and 14 percent for a sub-sample of 50.

Report structure

Depending on the type of question, the report describes results for all households, by age of the randomly selected child within the household, by type of caregiver, by geographic location or by type of child care arrangement. In the text, results are rounded and reported as whole numbers.

Researchers tested key variables to see if results differed statistically by these family and child care characteristics: selected child’s age (0-5 versus 6-12); type of caregiver (relative versus non-relative); and geography (metro study counties versus rural study counties). The statistically significant differences (p<.05) are reported as bullets at the end of each topical section.

The statistically significant differences (p<.05) are indented in this format at the end of each topical section.


Statewide trends and costs This section provides context for the survey data, describing the use and costs of family, friend and neighbor caregivers serving children through the Minnesota Child Care Assistance Program (CCAP) with data from the Minnesota Department of Human Services.

Change in the number of registered (legal non-licensed) family, friend and neighbor (FFN) caregivers providing child care to families receiving child care subsidies

Figure 2 shows that the number of FFN caregivers registered with CCAP grew sharply from 1997 to 1999, from 4,784 to 10,247, then continued to steadily increase to 13,270 in 2003.

Based on calling attempts in the FFN caregiver survey, researchers estimate that, of FFN caregivers registered with CCAP, about 38 percent are providing child care at any point in time.

2. Minnesota FFN caregivers registered with CCAP 1997-2003

Source: Minnesota Department of Human Services Child Care Assistance Program

Amount of child care assistance being spent on registered (legal non-licensed) FFN child care

In state fiscal year 2004, about 8,741 legal non-licensed providers collected approximately 19 to 30 percent of CCAP total expenditures of $165 million, including federal, state and local funds (excluding administration).11

11 Estimates are based on total expenditures as reported on the February 2005 forecast from the

Minnesota Department of Human Services.

4,784

10,247

13,270

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003


Number of CCAP children using legal non-licensed FFN care (excluding legally non-licensed school-age care programs)

As shown in Figure 3, the number of children in legal non-licensed FFN care is steadily growing. From 1997 to 2003, the number more than tripled from about 9,246 to about 30,094 children. This steady growth (except for a small decline in 2000) is also seen in the metropolitan area. From 1997 to 2003, the number of CCAP children in legal non-licensed care in the Twin Cities metro area grew significantly from about 4,515 to about 16,333 children. Greater Minnesota has also seen growth in the number of children in legal non-licensed care from about 4,731 children in 1997 to about 13,761 children in 2003, although the pattern of growth differs slightly from that of the state and the metro area.

3. Number of CCAP children in legal non-licensed FFN care in Minnesota by year by region (excluding legally non-licensed school-age care programs)


As shown in Figure 4, of the four counties in the household survey, Hennepin had the sharpest increase in the number of children in legal non-licensed care from 1997 to 2003 from about 1,935 to about 8,935 children. The other three counties have also experienced increases, although the numbers are much smaller. For example, in Brown County, the number of children in legal non-licensed care went from about 58 in 1997 to about 148 in 2003.

4,731

13,761

4,515

16,333

30,094

9,246

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Statewide

Metro (7 county Twin Cities area)

Greater Minnesota


4. Number of children in legal non-licensed care for Anoka, Brown, Hennepin and Nicollet counties


0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Num

ber

of c

hild

ren

Hennepin

Anoka Nicollet Brown


Number of MFIP families using CCAP for licensed and legal non-licensed care

According to the Minnesota Department of Human Services, from 1999 to 2003, a higher percentage of MFIP children were in legal non-licensed FFN care than in center-based care or in licensed family home care (see Figure 5).

The percentage of MFIP children in legal non-licensed care steadily increased from 39 percent in federal fiscal year (FFY) 1999 to 46 percent in FFY 2002, and remained relatively steady at 45 percent in FFY 2003.

5. Percent of MFIP children receiving CCAP by type of care


39% 40% 42%46% 45%

27% 27% 24% 22% 22%

35% 34% 34% 33% 33%

FFY 1999 FFY 2000 FFY 2001 FFY 2002 FFY 2003

Legal non-licensed FFN careLicensed family child care homeCenter-based child care (includes registered centers)


Profile of Child Care Assistance Program households using family, friend and neighbor care

This section describes the sample of CCAP households using FFN care for at least one child. Information is provided on respondent and household characteristics, employment and household financial status, number and age of children in household, child care arrangements, child care costs, child care choices and work problems related to child care.

Respondent and household characteristics

As shown in Figure 6, CCAP household respondents are primarily the parents (98 percent) of the randomly selected children they discussed during the interview. Grandparents and other relative caregivers each make up about 1 percent of the sample.

Respondents range in age from under 20 to over 50. Eighty-four percent of household respondents are ages 20 to 39.

A little over half (56 percent) of household respondents are White. About one-fourth are Black or African American. The remaining household respondents classify themselves as Somali (7 percent), Hispanic or Latino (1 percent), American Indian (<1 percent), Asian (<1 percent) or other, including multiracial (9 percent). The primary language spoken at home is most commonly English (87 percent). The next most common language is Somali (11 percent).

In terms of education, 16 percent of respondents have less than a high school education; 33 percent have completed high school only; and 51 percent have some post secondary education or more.

About three-fourths of household respondents live in a one-parent household; a little less than one-fourth live in a two-parent household.

Regarding location, 61 percent of household respondents live in the metro study counties; the remaining 39 percent live in the rural study counties. Over half of household respondents have lived at their current address for one to five years.


6. Respondent and household demographics

Percent of all households

N=243 Respondent’s relationship to randomly selected child

Parent 97.9% Grandparent 1.2% Other relative 0.8%

Age of respondent Under 20 7.0% 20-29 52.3% 30-39 31.7% 40-49 5.8% 50 or older 2.9% Missing/refused 0.4%

Primary racial/ethnic identification of respondent White or Caucasian 56.0% Black or African American 25.1% Somali 7.4% Hispanic or Latino 1.2% American Indian 0.8% Asian 0.4% Multiracial or other 9.1%

Education level of respondent Eighth grade or less 4.9% Some high school 10.7% High school diploma or GED 32.9% Some college, including two-year degree or technical college 39.1% College graduate (bachelor’s) 10.3% Post-graduate work or professional school 1.2% Missing/refused 0.8%

Number of parents in the household One parent 76.5% Two parents 23.0% Missing/refused 0.4%

Source: CCAP survey of parents Note: Percents may not total 100 due to rounding.


6. Respondent and household demographics (continued)

Percent of all households

N=243 Primary language in the home

English 86.8% Somali 11.1% Spanish 1.2% Hmong 0.4% Other 0.4%

Geographic area of residence Twin Cities metro area study counties 60.9% Rural Minnesota study counties 39.1%

Length of time living at current residence Less than one year at current address 28.4% One to five years at current address 53.1% More than five years at current address 18.5%

Source: CCAP survey of parents Note: Percents may not total 100 due to rounding.

Employment and household financial information

Forty-three percent of households live at or below the federal poverty level. Eighty-four percent of households live at or below 200 percent of the federal poverty level (see Figure 7). A little over one-third of families are currently participating in the Minnesota Family Investment Program (MFIP).

As shown in Figure 8 (with multiple responses possible), during the week before completing the survey, 77 percent of household respondents worked at a paying job, and 22 percent were looking for work. About one-fourth were going to school or were in an unpaid job training program. Less than 10 percent were at home full time.12

Parents of selected children ages 6 to 12 are more likely than parents of selected children under age 6 to be employed (95 percent versus 75 percent).

As shown in Figure 9, 80 percent of mothers (which also includes fathers in households without a mother and non-parent, female respondents) are working, looking for work, 12 Family schedules may have changed between selection as part of the survey sample and time of the

interview due to a number of factors including program eligibility status, program participation, vacations and illnesses.


and/or going to school for the following number of hours per week: 40 or more hours per week (47 percent), 20 to 39 hours per week (32 percent) or one to 19 hours per week (1 percent). Twenty percent are not engaging in any of these activities.

Mothers of randomly selected children ages 6 to 12 are significantly more likely to be working, looking for work, and/or going to school 40 or more hours per week (66 percent) than mothers of randomly selected children under age 6 (36 percent). Conversely, mothers of randomly selected children under age 6 are more likely to be unemployed (not working, looking for work or attending school [27 percent] than mothers of randomly selected children between the ages of 6 and 12 [7 percent]). (This analysis does not include the employment or school status of fathers in two-parent households.)

Similarly, single-parent respondents are more likely to be employed and to work longer hours if their randomly selected child is school-age than if the child is not. In two-parent households, both parents are more likely to be employed full time if the randomly selected child is school-age. (See Figure 10 for information on employment status and number of hours employed for both single and two-parent households.)

7. Household income by number of people in household, 2003

Number of people in household

Household income, 2003 2

n=40 3

n=52 4

n=64 5

n=51 6

n=21 7 or more

n=15 Total

N=243 Under $10,000 27.5% 17.3% 25.0% 11.8% 9.5% 40.0% 20.6% $10,000-$12,499 12.5% 9.6% 4.7% 7.8% 0.0% 0.0% 7.0% $12,500-$14,999 5.0% 9.6% 7.8% 11.8% 0.0% 0.0% 7.4% $15,000-$17,499 5.0% 5.8% 1.6% 9.8% 0.0% 0.0% 4.5% $17,500-$19,999 12.5% 5.8% 10.9% 9.8% 14.3% 0.0% 9.5% $20,000-$24,999 25.0% 13.5% 7.8% 9.8% 14.3% 20.0% 13.6% $25,000-$29,999 2.5% 17.3% 14.1% 11.8% 14.3% 6.7% 11.9% $30,000-$34,999 0.0% 7.7% 10.9% 13.7% 9.5% 13.3% 9.1% $35,000-$39,999 0.0% 1.9% 0.0% 3.9% 0.0% 0.0% 1.2% $40,000-$44,999 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.0% 4.8% 0.0% 0.8% $45,000-$49,999 0.0% 1.9% 3.1% 0.0% 9.5% 0.0% 2.1% $50,000-$99,999 2.5% 3.8% 3.1% 3.9% 14.3% 0.0% 4.1% Don’t know/refused 7.5% 5.8% 10.9% 3.9% 9.5% 20.0% 8.2% Families at or below 100% poverty 40.0% 36.5% 39.1% 51.0% 38.1% 66.7% 42.8% Families at or below 200% poverty 87.5% 78.8% 82.8% 92.2% 76.2% 80.0% 84.0% Families above 200% poverty 5.0% 15.4% 6.3% 3.9% 14.3% 0.0% 7.8%

Source: CCAP survey of parents Note: Darker shaded cells show families at or below the poverty line. Lightly shaded cells indicate ranges that include families above the poverty level (100 percent of federal poverty guidelines) but still classified as low income (at or below 200 percent of federal poverty guidelines). Non-shaded cells show families above 200 percent of federal poverty guidelines. Columns do not total to 100 due to rounding.


8. Work activities of parents during the previous week by age of randomly selected child

Age of child

Percent of households with parents who are: 0-5

n=158 6-12 n=85

Total N=243

Working for pay at a job (including self-employed) 70.9% 88.2% 77.0%

Holding a job but not at work (vacation, jury duty, sick) 3.8% 7.1% 4.9%

Looking for work 25.3% 16.5% 22.2%

Going to school 22.2% 17.6% 20.6%

In an unpaid job training program 3.8% 0.0% 2.5%

At home full time 9.5% 7.1% 8.6%

Unable to work because of disability 3.2% 1.2% 2.5%

Source: CCAP survey of parents Note: “Parent” is the adult in the household most knowledgeable about the child’s care. The category includes non-parent respondents who are the primary caregivers for the children in the household. Multiple responses are possible. Family schedules may have changed between selection as part of the survey sample and time of the interview due to a number of factors including program eligibility status, program participation, vacations and illnesses.

9. Work activities of mothers by age of randomly selected child

Age of child

Percent of households with mothers (see note) who are “working”:

0-5 n= 157

6-12 n=83

Total N=240

40+ hours per week 36.3% 65.5% 46.5%

20-39 hours per week 35.0% 27.4% 32.4%

1-19 hours per week 1.9% 0.0% 1.2%

Zero hours per week 26.8% 7.1% 19.9%

Source: CCAP survey of parents Note: “Mothers” includes single-parent fathers and female, non-parent respondents in households. “Working” includes holding a job but not at work (sick, vacation, etc.), looking for work or going to school. Family schedules may have changed between selection as part of the survey sample and time of the interview due to a number of factors including program eligibility status, program participation, vacations and illnesses.


10. Parents and employment status by age of randomly selected child

Age of child Employment status of respondent and related adults (parents) in household Percent of households with:

0-5 n=157

6-12 n=83

Total N=240

Single parent, employed 40+ hrs/wk 25.5% 56.6% 36.3%

Single parent, employed less than 40 hrs/wk 26.8% 25.3% 26.3%

Single parent, not employed 19.7% 6.0% 15.0%

Two parents, both employed 40+ hrs/wk 7.0% 7.2% 7.1%

Two parents, one employed 40+ hrs/wk; one employed less than 40 hrs/wk 9.6% 3.6% 7.5%

Two parents, one employed 40+ hrs/wk; one not employed 7.6% 1.2% 5.4%

Two parents, one employed less than 40 hrs/wk; one not employed 1.9% 0.0% 1.3%

Two parents, both employed less than 40 hrs/wk 1.3% 0.0% 0.8%

Two parents, neither employed 0.6% 0.0% 0.4%

Percent of households with at least one parent working 79.7% 94.0% 84.6%

Source: CCAP survey of parents

Children in household

Of the randomly selected children, 8 percent are under 1 year old; 26 percent are ages 1 to 2; 31 percent are ages 3 to 5; 25 percent are ages 6 to 9; and 10 percent are ages 10 to 12 (see Figure 11). Overall, randomly selected children are slightly younger than all children in the households.

Of all children in the households, 6 percent are under 1 year old; 21 percent are ages 1 to 2; 31 percent are 3 to 5; 29 percent are 6 to 9; and 14 percent are 10 to 12.

Of the households surveyed, 40 percent have one child ages 12 or younger, 30 percent have two children 12 or younger, and 22 percent have three children 12 or younger (see Figure 12). Almost 8 percent have four or more children ages 12 or younger.

One-parent households are more likely to have one child than two-parent households (44 percent versus 27 percent).


11. Ages of children, age 12 and under only

Ages of children

Percent of all children in households

N=492

Percent of randomly

selected children N=243

Under 1 year old 5.5% 8.2%

1-2 years old 20.5% 26.3%

3-5 years old 31.0% 30.5%

6-9 years old 29.2% 25.1%

10-12 years old 13.9% 9.9%

Source: CCAP survey of parents Note: Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding.

12. Number of children age 12 or younger in household by number of parents in household

Percent of households with: One parent

n=186 Two parents

n=56 All households

N=242

One child age 12 or younger 43.5% 26.8% 39.7%

Two children 28.5% 35.7% 30.2%

Three children 21.5% 25.0% 22.3%

Four children 4.8% 7.1% 5.4%

Five or more children 1.6% 5.4% 2.5%

Source: CCAP survey of parents Note: “Parent” is the adult in the household most knowledgeable about the child’s care. It includes non-parent respondents who are the primary caregivers for the children in the household, such as grandparents, aunts or uncles.


Profile of all child care used by Child Care Assistance Program households using FFN care While all the CCAP households in this survey use FFN care, not all the randomly selected children in those households use FFN care.

Child care arrangements

For all children in their household, over half of respondents use one child care arrangement, 35 percent use two, and 13 percent use three or more (see Figure 13).13

Rural Minnesota households are more likely to use two or more child care arrangements than metro area households.

For individual children (randomly sampled), 38 percent of households use one child care arrangement, 39 percent use two, and 24 percent use three or more (see Figure 14).

13. Number of child care arrangements for all children by location

Location of CCAP households using FFN care

Number of arrangements Metro n=147

Rural n=95

Total N=242

One 59.2% 41.1% 52.1%

Two 30.6% 41.1% 34.7%

Three 6.1% 15.8% 9.9%

Four or five 4.1% 2.2% 3.3%

Mean number of arrangements per household, including all children (N=242) 1.55 1.80 1.65

Source: CCAP survey of parents Note: Excludes child care arrangements that were not used in each of the previous two weeks.

13 Figure 13 is a response to an open-ended general question about the number of arrangements the

household has for all children ages 12 and younger, using the respondent’s own estimation and definitions of child care. Figure 14 is based on a defined list of arrangements that was read to the respondent.


14. Number of child care arrangements for randomly selected children by age

Age of child

Number of arrangements 0-5

n=158 6-12 n=85

Total N=243

One 38.6% 36.5% 37.9%

Two 39.9% 36.5% 38.7%

Three 13.9% 14.1% 14.0%

Four or more 7.6% 12.9% 9.5%

Mean number of arrangements, randomly selected child (N=243) 1.92 2.08 1.98

Source: CCAP survey of parents Note: Excludes child care arrangements that were not used in each of the previous two weeks.

All types of child care used

In terms of all types of child care used by the randomly selected child (as opposed to primary child care arrangement), 79 percent of children are in FFN care. The same percentage are also cared for in other types of child care settings including 42 percent in center-based care, 24 percent in supervised activities and 13 percent in licensed family child care. In addition, 7 percent use self care (see Figure 15).

While all the CCAP households use FFN care, not all the randomly selected children in those households are in FFN care.

For the randomly selected children, the percent of children in FFN care does not differ by age. However, the care is more likely to be provided by grandparents or another relative for children under age 6 and by non-relative caregivers for children ages 6 to 12.

Children ages 6 to 12 are more likely to be in supervised activities or use self care than children under 6. These types of care are not paid for with child care assistance dollars.


15. All types of child care used by age of randomly selected child Age of child

Type of arrangement 0-5

n=158 6-12 n=85

Total N=243

FFN care 79.1% 80.0% 79.4% Child’s grandparent 54.4% 37.6% 48.6% Child’s sibling (over age 12) 8.2% 7.1% 7.8% Another relative (aunt, cousin, etc.) 34.2% 21.2% 29.6% Non-relative 21.5% 34.1% 25.9%

Licensed family child care 13.9% 10.6% 12.8%

Center-based care 44.3% 36.5% 41.6% Child care center, nursery school, preschool, pre-kindergarten 34.2% 0.0% 22.2% Before- or after-school program 0.6% 36.5% 13.2% Head Start 10.1% 0.0% 6.6% Kindergarten 4.4% 0.0% 2.9%

Supervised activities 12.7% 44.7% 23.9%

Self care 2.5% 16.5% 7.4%

Source: CCAP survey of parents Note: Shows all types of care that were used at least once per week in each of the previous two weeks. Children may be listed in multiple categories. Figures in bold are unduplicated totals of any subcategories shown below them. Care may or may not be paid for with CCAP dollars.

Primary child care arrangement

As shown in Figure 16, for randomly selected children, 59 percent of primary child care arrangements are FFN care either in the child’s home (35 percent) or in someone else’s home (24 percent). The next most common type of care is center-based (26 percent), followed by licensed family child care (10 percent), supervised activities (5 percent) and self care (1 percent).

Metro area study county households are more likely than rural Minnesota study county households to use FFN care, specifically in the child’s home (44 percent versus 21 percent). Rural Minnesota households are more likely than metro area households to use non-FFN types of care, the largest difference being in use of center-based care (31 percent versus 23 percent).

As shown in Figure 17, children under age 6 are more likely to be in center-based care as their primary arrangement (30 percent) than children ages 6 to 12 (18 percent).

Children ages 6 to 12 are more likely to be in supervised activities (11 percent) than children under age 6 (1 percent).


16. Primary child care arrangement for randomly selected child by location


Primary arrangement Metro n=148

Rural n=95

Total N=243

FFN care in child’s own home 43.9% 21.1% 35.0%

FFN care in someone else’s home (not child’s) 24.3% 23.2% 23.9%


Center-based care 23.0% 30.5% 25.9%

Self care 0.7% 2.1% 1.2%


Source: CCAP survey of parents Note: “Primary child care arrangement” refers to the one reported to be used most often for the randomly selected child.

17. Primary child care arrangement for randomly selected child by age of child

Age of child

Primary arrangement 0-5

n=158 6-12 n=85

Total N=243

FFN care in child’s own home 34.8% 35.3% 35.0%

FFN care in someone else’s home (not child’s) 22.8% 25.9% 23.9%



Self care 0.0% 3.5% 1.2%


Source: CCAP survey of parents Note: “Primary child care arrangement” refers to the one reported to be used most often for the randomly selected child.


Hours per week of child care used

In terms of hours per week for all arrangements for the randomly selected children, 36 percent of child care arrangements are for 45 hours or more per week, 26 percent for 35 to 44 hours per week, 21 percent for 20 to 34 hours per week and 10 percent for 10 to 19 hours per week (see Figure 18). Slightly less than 8 percent of child care arrangements are for nine or fewer hours per week. The mean amount of time spent per week in child care is 38 hours and 48 minutes regardless of the child’s age (see Figure 19).

On average, children spend the most time in licensed family child care (31 hours), followed by FFN care (approximately 24-26 hours), and center-based care (24 hours).

Metro area children average about five more hours per week in all child care arrangements than rural Minnesota children.

18. Number of hours in child care per week by location for randomly selected child


Hours in child care per week Metro n=147

Rural n=95

Total N=242

More than zero to less than five 3.4% 5.3% 4.1%

Five to less than 10 4.1% 3.2% 3.7%

10 to less than 20 6.8% 14.7% 9.9%

20 to less than 35 18.2% 24.2% 20.6%

35 to less than 45 31.1% 17.9% 25.9%

45 hours or more 36.5% 34.7% 35.8%

Mean number of hours in child care (N=243) 40 hrs., 46 mins.

35 hrs., 44 mins.

38 hrs., 48 mins.

Source: CCAP survey of parents Note: Number of hours for all child care arrangements of randomly selected child. Column totals may vary from 100 percent due to rounding.


19. Mean hours in child care per week

Type of arrangement Total

N=243

FFN care in child’s own home (N=127) 23.5

FFN care in someone else’s home (N=97) 25.7

Licensed family child care (N=31) 31.2

Center-based care (N=96) 24.4

Supervised activities (N=56) 10.0

Self care (N=15) 3.7

Mean hours per week for all child care types combined (N=243) 38.8

Source: CCAP survey of parents Note: Includes only randomly selected children who regularly receive child care five or more hours per week. Children may be included in multiple categories.

Child care schedules

As shown in Figure 20, in terms of schedule, 95 percent of children are in standard weekday care (Monday-Friday, 7 a.m. to 6 p.m.), with 28 percent of children in standard weekday care only.

Almost half of children are in child care during the evenings (from 6 p.m. to 10 p.m.) and almost half on the weekends. About one-quarter of children are in child care in the early mornings (before 7 a.m.) and about one-quarter at night (after 10 p.m.).

Children under 6 years old are more likely to be in standard weekday care only than children ages 6 to 12 (31 percent versus 22 percent).

Children are more likely to be in FFN care if their child care schedule includes early morning, evening, late night or weekend hours (see Figure 21).


20. Child care schedule by age of randomly selected child

Age of child

Child care schedule 0-5

n=151 6-12 n=82

Total N=233

Standard weekday (Monday–Friday, 7 a.m.-6 p.m.) only 31.1% 22.0% 27.9%

Percent of all children in child care whose care schedule includes:

Standard weekday (7 a.m.-6 p.m.) 96.7% 91.5% 94.8%

Early mornings (before 7 a.m.) 23.8% 31.7% 26.6%

Evenings (6 p.m.-10 p.m.) 48.3% 51.2% 49.4%

Nights (after 10 p.m.) 24.5% 29.3% 26.2%

Weekends 46.4% 56.1% 49.8%

Source: CCAP survey of parents Note: Includes only children who regularly receive child care five or more hours per week. One child may be included in multiple categories (except standard weekday schedule only). Percents in the lower part of this figure are based on the same set of cases as those in the upper part (n=233).

21. Types of arrangement by child care schedule

Of children in child care during the time shown, distribution by type(s) of care during that time

Standard weekday (7 a.m.- 6 p.m.) N=221

Early morning (< 7 a.m.)

N=62

Evening (6-10 p.m.)

N=115

Late night(>10 p.m.)

N=61 Weekend

N=116

FFN care in child’s own home 41.6% 38.7% 61.7% 63.9% 58.6%

FFN care in someone else’s home 31.2% 40.3% 33.9% 42.6% 41.4%

Licensed family child care 12.7% 11.3% 6.1% 4.9% 3.4%

Center-based care 43.4% 17.7% 4.3% 1.6% 3.4%

Self care 5.0% 0.0% 4.3% 1.6% 6.0%

Supervised activities 16.3% 4.8% 11.3% 3.3% 12.9%

Source: CCAP survey of parents Note: Children may be included in multiple schedule categories. Includes only children who are in child care at least five hours per week and in arrangements used at least once per week for the previous two weeks. For this analysis, supervised activities do not include overnight camp.


Backup arrangements

As shown in Figure 22, regardless of the type of primary child care arrangement, when a child is sick, parents most often stay home (55 percent).

Staying home is most common for parents whose children are in licensed family child care (83 percent) or self care (100 percent).

Parents using FFN care at home (24 percent) or at someone else’s home (26 percent) are more often able to keep their sick child in their primary arrangement than parents using licensed family child care (9 percent) or center-based care (2 percent).

As shown in Figure 23, when there is no school on a weekday, a little less than half of household respondents report that their school-age child can still go to their primary child care arrangement (48 percent).

When there is no school on a weekday, children are more likely to stay in their primary child care arrangement if they are in licensed family care (75 percent) or center-based care (67 percent) than if they are in FFN care at home (31 percent) or in FFN care at someone else’s home (44 percent).

Children are more likely to have a relative take care of them if they are in FFN care at home (39 percent) or in FFN care at someone else’s home (33 percent) than if they are in licensed family child care (0 percent) or center-based care (0 percent).

22. Backup arrangements for children who are sick

Type of arrangement Total

N=239

Parent stays home or goes home 54.8%

Child goes to regular arrangement (other than school) 16.3%

Relative cares for child 13.0%

Spouse/partner stays home or goes home 8.4%

Neighbor or friend cares for child 2.9%

Child cares for self 0.8%

Parent takes child to work 0.4%

Older child stays home to care for the sick child 0.4%

Other 2.9%

Source: CCAP survey of parents Note: Response to open-ended question, grouped by category. Percents do not total 100 due to rounding.


23. Backup arrangements for school-age children when there is no school on a regular weekday

Type of arrangement Total N=40

Child goes to regular arrangement (other than school) 47.5%

Relative cares for child 22.5%

Neighbor or friend cares for child 15.0%

Parent stays home or goes home 7.5%

Spouse/partner stays home or goes home 2.5%

Child cares for self 2.5%

Parent hires sitter 2.5%

Source: CCAP survey of parents Note: Response to open-ended question, grouped by category. Includes only families with children ages 6-12 in child care. Not asked of families surveyed during the summer.

Child care expenses

Expenses for all children in the household

Child care expenses were calculated for all children in the household. On average, households pay $66.80 out-of-pocket per week for child care (see Figure 24). Excluding those households who have no out-of-pocket child care expenses, the average payment for all children is $94.57 weekly or $4,917 annually.

For those who have out-of-pocket child care expenses, households in metro area study counties, on average, pay more than households in rural study counties ($103 weekly versus $83 weekly).

Households with the lowest annual income (below $20,000) are the most likely to have no out-of-pocket child care expenses (see Figure 25).

Of the households with child care out-of-pocket expenses, households with annual income between $20,000 and $44,999 pay, on average, more for child care ($112.11 weekly) than both households with smaller and larger annual income ($80.22 and $93.09 weekly, respectively).


24. Average total weekly expenses of child care per household (parents’ out-of-pocket expenses for all children)

Total

N=235 Mean expense - all families (N=235) $66.80 Mean weekly expense - only those who pay out-of-pocket (N=166) $94.57 Calculated annual expense - only those who pay (N=166) $4,917

Source: CCAP survey of parents Note: Top two rows show parents’ out-of-pocket expenses for the previous week for all children in the household age 12 and younger. Final row is the calculated annual expense based on weekly out-of-pocket expense multiplied by 52 weeks.

25. Weekly expense of child care (parents’ out-of-pocket expenses) by household income

Annual household income

Weekly household payment for child care, all children

Under $20,000 n=113

$20,000-under $45,000

n=88

$45,000 or more

n=15 Total

N=216 $0 32.7% 20.5% 26.7% 27.3% $1-$50 32.7% 34.1% 26.7% 32.9% $51-$100 18.6% 13.6% 20.0% 16.7% $101-$200 11.5% 25.0% 20.0% 17.6% $201-$300 2.7% 4.5% 6.7% 3.7% More than $300 1.8% 2.3% 0.0% 1.9% Mean weekly payment, all families $53.96 $89.18 $68.27 $69.30

Household payment, only those who paid out-of-pocket n=76 n=70 n=11 N=157

Mean weekly payment $80.22 $112.11 $93.09 $95.34 Calculated annual expense $4,172 $5,830 $4,841 $4,958

Annual expense as percent of income n=68 n=69 n=11 N=148

Average annual expense as percent of income 29.2% 19.1% 8.4% 22.9% Median annual expense as percent of income 20.3% 12.7% 6.7% 16.3%

Source: CCAP survey of parents Note: For all children in the household ages 12 and younger. Calculated annual expense is based on weekly out-of-pocket expense multiplied by 52 weeks. Annual expense as percent of income is based on calculated annual expense divided by midpoint of income range. Percentages may be overestimated or underestimated depending on actual annual out-of-pocket expense and actual annual income.


Expenses for selected child

Slightly over half of household respondents have no out-of-pocket child care expenses for their randomly selected child.

As shown in Figure 26, for those who do have out-of-pocket expenses, child care for children under age 6 is more expensive on average, than for children ages 6 to 12 ($62.33 per week versus $49.34 per week).

26. Weekly out-of-pocket expenses of child care for randomly selected child by child’s age

Age of child

Weekly payment for child care 0-5

n=158 6-12 n=85

Total N=243

$0 55.7% 51.8% 54.3%

$1-$25 11.4% 18.8% 14.0%

$26-$50 15.2% 11.8% 14.0%

$51-$100 8.2% 11.8% 9.5%

$101-$150 8.9% 4.7% 7.4%

More than $150 0.6% 1.2% 0.8%

Mean weekly expense, all families $27.61 $23.80 $26.28

Child care payment, only those who paid n=70 n=41 N=111

Mean weekly expense, only those who paid $62.33 $49.34 $57.53

Calculated annual expense, only those who paid $3,241 $2,566 $2,992

Source: CCAP survey of parents Note: Weekly payments show parents’ out-of-pocket expenses for the previous week for the randomly selected child. The calculated annual expense is based on weekly out-of-pocket expense multiplied by 52 weeks.


Other types of help paying for child care

CCAP household respondents were asked if they received other forms of help in paying for child care. As shown in Figure 27, 41 percent received a federal or state income tax credit for child care expenses last year; 10 percent use a child care expense account through their employer; 10 percent receive financial assistance from the child’s other parent; 1 percent receive an employer-paid subsidy; and 1 percent receive some other form of financial support, such as help from a family member or friend or a grant related to autism.

CCAP household respondents whose randomly selected child is ages 6 to 12 are more likely to receive a federal or state income tax credit for child care expenses last year (49 percent) than those whose randomly selected child is under age 6 (36 percent).

27. Help with child care costs by age of randomly selected child

Age of child

Type of help received 0-5 6-12 Total

Federal or state income tax credit for child care expenses last year

n=146 36.3%

n=84 48.8%

N=230 40.9%

Child care expense account through employer (pre-tax purchase)

n=150 12.7%

n=83 4.8%

N=233 9.9%

Child’s other parent (in a different household) n=157 9.6%

n=85 10.6%

N=242 9.9%

Employer-paid subsidy n=157 1.3%

n=85 1.2%

N=242 1.2%

Other (friend/family, support grant for autism) n=157 1.3%

n=85 1.2%

N=242 1.2%



Child care choices

As shown in Figure 28, 44 percent of respondents in the four study counties seriously considered using other types of child care regardless of the type of care upon which they decided.

As shown in Figure 29, overall, household respondents are most likely to have seriously considered center-based care for their randomly selected child, regardless of the child’s age (60 percent).

Household respondents are more likely to have seriously considered relative FFN care for children under age 6 (43 percent) than for children ages 6 to 12 (25 percent).

As shown in Figure 30, household respondents who choose FFN care are most likely to have seriously considered center-based or licensed family child care as an alternative option (44 percent). Household respondents who choose center-based care are most likely to have considered FFN care as an alternative option (67 percent).

28. Households that seriously considered other kinds of arrangements for randomly selected child

Primary arrangement

Percent of each type of

arrangement

FFN care in child’s own home (N=84) 44.0%

FFN care in someone else’s home (N=57) 45.6%

Licensed family child care (N=23) 43.5%

Center-based care (N=63) 46.0%

Self care (N=3) 33.3%

Supervised activities (N=11) 36.4%

All types combined (N=241) 44.4%

Source: CCAP survey of parents Note: “Primary arrangement” is the one in which the child spent the most time in the survey week.


29. Kind of arrangements seriously considered, by age of randomly selected child

Age of child

Type of arrangement 0-5

n=75 6-12 n=32

Total N=107

FFN care 42.7% 25.0% 37.4%



Self care 0.0% 3.1% 0.9%


Source: CCAP survey of parents Note: Shows the type of arrangements seriously considered by the parent when selecting the child’s current primary arrangement.

30. Current primary arrangement by types of arrangements seriously considered

Types of arrangements seriously considered

Current primary arrangement

FFN care in own home or someone

else’s home n=39

Center-based or licensed family

child care n=63

Total N=102

FFN relative care 33.3% 43.6% 37.3%



Source: CCAP survey of parents Note: Shows the types of arrangements seriously considered by the parent when selecting the child’s current primary arrangement. “Current primary arrangement” is the one in which the child spent the most time in the survey week. Does not include self care and supervised activities.

While some respondents considered other possible child care arrangements, 31 percent of respondents felt they had no other realistic option than their current arrangement (see Figure 31). Of those who felt they had no other realistic option than their current child care arrangement, 37 percent primarily used FFN care at home; 26 percent primarily used center-based care; 18 percent primarily used FFN care at someone else’s home, and 12 percent primarily used licensed family child care.


31. Households that had no realistic options other than their current arrangement by the type of primary child care arrangement

Current primary arrangement Total N=74

FFN care in own home 36.5%

FFN care in someone else’s home 17.6%

Licensed family child care 12.2%

Center-based care 25.7%

All types combined 30.7%

Source: CCAP survey of parents Note: “Current primary arrangement” is the one in which the child spent the most time in the survey week. Does not include self care and activities.

Reasons for choosing primary arrangement and FFN care

As shown in Figure 32, various factors related to quality are the most commonly cited reason for choosing a primary child care arrangement (48 percent), followed by location (25 percent), the preference for a family member to provide care (23 percent) and trust (21 percent).

Location is especially important to household respondents who use FFN care at home (33 percent).

Wanting a relative to provide care is cited primarily by household respondents who use FFN care at someone else’s home (46 percent) or in their own home (29 percent).

Trust is also an especially important reason for those who use FFN care at home (29 percent) or in someone else’s home.

Quality of care, ranked as important by all groups, is ranked most highly by household respondents who use licensed family care (74 percent) or center-based care (69 percent).

Similarly, the 1999-2000 Minnesota Household Child Care Survey found that the following are the most common reasons for using legal non-licensed FFN care (respondent could provide more than one response):

Convenient location (44 percent)

Interaction between the child and provider (27 percent)

Quality of care given (19 percent)

Convenient hours (18 percent)

Availability (14 percent)


Data from the Minnesota Family Investment Program Longitudinal Study14 suggest that two of the primary advantages of FFN care are users’ perceptions of cost and quality. Another primary reason for using FFN care may be the hours that parents work. Notably, 53 percent of respondents who use FFN care have work, school or training that occurs (not necessarily entirely) between 6 p.m. and 6 a.m., compared to 39 percent of respondents who use licensed child care.

Approximately one-third of household respondents who do not use relative care or self care learned about the child care arrangement they currently use most through a friend, neighbor, relative or co-worker (see Figure 33).

32. Reasons people choose primary child care arrangement

Reason for choosing arrangement Total

N=222 Quality factors (unduplicated) 47.7%

Quality of care (generally) 16.7% Training/experience of provider 8.1% Interaction 8.1% School work and study time help 7.2% Safety issues 5.4% Personality of provider 5.0% Number of children 3.6% Structure and activities 3.2%

Location 24.8% Family member preferred 23.4% Trust 21.2% Convenient and flexible hours 14.9% Cost 12.6% Availability 8.6% Wanted home care 8.6% Child’s socialization with friends, other children 5.4% Special needs of child 5.0% References/used before 4.1% Culture, values, language 2.7% Appearance 1.4% Problems with others 1.4% Licensed 0.5%

Source: CCAP survey of parents Note: Responses to open-ended question, grouped into categories. Includes both first and second reasons when given; total exceeds 100 percent due to multiple responses.

14 Minnesota Family Investment Program Longitudinal Study. 2002. St. Paul, MN: Minnesota

Department of Human Services


33. How people learned about the arrangement they currently use most

How people learned about arrangement Total

N=117

Referred by friends, neighbors, relatives, co-workers 35.0%

Already knew provider 17.9%

Community service, Child Care Resource & Referral 13.7%

Newspaper, advertisements, yellow pages 7.7%

Public or private school 6.0%

Welfare or social service caseworkers 4.3%

Public bulletin boards, flyers 3.4%

Provided care for other child 2.6%

Non-child care related organization 2.6%

Reference materials 2.6%

Place of employment 2.6%

Drove by/happenstance 0.9%

Close to home 0.9%

Source: CCAP survey of parents Note: Responses to open-ended question, grouped into categories. Question was not asked of families whose primary arrangement is relative care or self care. “Primary arrangement” is the one in which the child spends the most time.

Child care barriers

As shown in Figure 34, the Minnesota Family Investment Program Longitudinal Study (2002) asked respondents whether different aspects of child care proved a barrier to them finding or maintaining employment. Generally, those using legal non-licensed child care tend to report barriers less often than those using licensed child care.

For users of legal non-licensed child care, 15 percent stated that child care availability was at least somewhat a problem compared to 26 percent of licensed child care users.

For users of legal non-licensed child care, 4 percent stated that child care quality was at least somewhat a problem compared to 15 percent of licensed child care users, a statistically significant difference.

Nine percent of legal non-licensed child care users felt that provider reliability was at least somewhat a problem compared to 17 percent of licensed child care users.

Six percent of respondents who used legal non-licensed child care felt that child care cost was at least somewhat a problem compared to 27 percent of licensed care users, a statistically significant difference.


34. MFIP Longitudinal Study: Child care barriers by type of care

N

Not a problem

Somewhat a problem

A big problem

Missing/unsure

Child care availability

Legal non-licensed care 68 85.3% 7.4% 7.4% 0.0%

Licensed care 1,199 73.2% 16.3% 10.0% 0.4%

Child care quality


Licensed care 1,198 81.3% 9.2% 6.1% 3.4%

Child care reliability


Licensed care 1,199 79.6% 10.5% 6.3% 3.7%

Child care cost


Licensed care 1,199 72.4% 13.6% 13.3% 0.7%

Source: Minnesota Family Investment Program Longitudinal Study, Minnesota Department of Human Services, 2002 Note: Row totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding.

Parent interaction and satisfaction with caregiver in primary arrangement

As shown in Figure 35, 81 percent of CCAP household respondents say that they and the caregiver in their primary arrangement frequently share information regarding the child. Fifty-six percent say they frequently talk about the child’s daily activities; 44 percent say they frequently discuss particular problems about the child; and 44 percent say they frequently discuss the child’s health and physical well-being. Parents and caregivers less often plan activities together for the child (32 percent).

If the randomly selected child is under age 6, parents and caregivers are more likely to discuss the child’s daily routine (63 percent) and the child’s health and physical well-being (50 percent) than if the child is 6 to 12 (43 percent and 32 percent).

Sixty-one percent of CCAP household respondents say they never disagree with the caregiver about things like schedules, what the child eats or discipline; an additional 26 percent say they seldom do.

Most CCAP household respondents (85 percent) report that they and the caregivers cooperate and work together “very well” to make sure children’s needs are met; 13 percent say they cooperate “somewhat well,” and one percent say “somewhat poorly.”


Almost 90 percent of CCAP household respondents feel that the match between their child-rearing values and the caregiver’s is excellent (53 percent) or good (36 percent). About 10 percent describe the match as fair, and 2 percent describe it as poor.

35. Interaction between parents and caregiver in primary arrangement

In the past month, how often parent and the child’s caregiver: (N=220) Frequently Occasionally Seldom Never Shared information about child 81.4% 13.2% 4.1% 1.4% Planned activities for child 32.0% 32.0% 17.8% 18.3% Discussed particular problems about child 44.3% 21.0% 16.4% 18.3% Talked about daily activities, such as what the child does every morning or afternoon 56.2% 20.1% 11.0% 12.8% Discussed child’s health and physical well-being 43.8% 27.6% 14.7% 13.8% How often parent and the child’s caregiver disagree about things like schedules, what the child eats, or discipline (N=219) 1.8% 11.4% 25.6% 61.2%

Very well Somewhat

well Somewhat

poorly Very

poorly How well parent and caregiver are able to cooperate and work together to ensure child’s needs are met (N=219) 85.4% 13.2% 1.4% 0.0% Excellent Good Fair Poor How good is the match between parent’s own child-rearing values and those of the child’s caregiver (N=219) 53.0% 35.6% 9.6% 1.8%

Source: CCAP survey of parents Note: Questions not asked of respondents who used self care as primary child care arrangement or who used child care for a total of five hours or less. Ns vary slightly due to missing/refused responses.

CCAP household respondents were also asked about their satisfaction with the primary arrangement of their randomly selected child. As shown in Figure 36, 88 percent of CCAP household respondents feel free to drop in at the child care arrangement without notice. Ninety-two percent report that their child always feels safe and secure; 86 percent say that their child always likes the caregiver; 83 percent say that they and the caregiver always share information about the child; and 80 percent report that the caregiver is always warm and affectionate toward the child. Eighty-three percent of CCAP household respondents say if they had to do it over again they would choose the same child care arrangement.

To a lesser extent, CCAP household respondents feel that there are a lot of creative activities that are just right for their child occurring in child care (60 percent), that their child gets a lot of individual attention (55 percent) and that they can rely on the caregiver to be flexible about their hours (53 percent).


36. Parents’ quality and satisfaction ratings for randomly selected child’s primary child care arrangement

Yes No Parent feels free to drop in at this child care arrangement without an appointment (N=221) 87.7% 12.3%

N=222 Always Usually Some-times Rarely Never

My child feels safe and secure 91.9% 6.3% 0.9% 0.5% 0.5%My child likes the caregiver or provider 86.4% 10.9% 1.8% 0.5% 0.5%The caregiver and I share information about my child 83.3% 10.4% 3.2% 1.8% 1.4%If I had it to do over, I would choose this care again 83.3% 9.5% 4.1% 0.9% 2.3%The caregiver or provider is warm and affectionate toward my child 80.2% 14.9% 4.1% 0.0% 0.9%My caregiver knows a lot about children and their needs 73.9% 18.9% 6.8% 0.0% 0.5%The caregiver provides activities that are just right for my child 60.3% 21.9% 16.0% 1.4% 0.5%There are lots of creative activities going on 55.7% 17.6% 23.5% 1.8% 1.4%My child gets a lot of individual attention 54.5% 24.5% 20.0% 0.5% 0.5%I rely on my caregiver to be flexible about my hours 52.7% 15.5% 17.7% 4.5% 9.5%My caregiver feels that my child’s needs are too demanding 8.6% 1.8% 13.6% 9.5% 66.4%The caregiver needs more help with the children 3.6% 2.3% 15.8% 15.3% 63.1%The children watch too much TV 3.2% 1.8% 22.5% 19.3% 53.2%

Source: CCAP survey of parents Note: Questions not asked of respondents who used self care as primary child care arrangement or who used child care for a total of five hours or less. “Primary child care arrangement” refers to the one reported to be used most often for the randomly selected child. Ns vary slightly due to missing/refused responses.

Work-related child care problems

In the past six months, approximately 20 percent of CCAP household respondents have missed an entire day of work due to problems with child care (see Figure 37). Similarly, over 20 percent were late for work or had to leave work early, could not work overtime, changed shifts or schedule and/or worked fewer hours due to problems with child care. Of those who lost time, about 47 percent of respondents say they “sometimes” or “often” lose time from work due to child care problems.

CCAP household respondents using FFN care at someone else’s home are generally slightly less likely than those using other types of care to have child care problems affect the time they spend at work.


As shown in Figure 38, CCAP household respondents whose randomly selected child is under age 6 are more likely to report that their work is affected by child care related problems than respondents whose randomly selected child was ages 6 to 12 (with the exception of one’s quality of work suffering due to worrying about one’s child, which is equally likely across age groups).

As shown in Figure 39, the primary problem with child care cited by CCAP household respondents that caused them to miss time at work is the provider not being available or scheduling problems (56 percent).

37. Work-related child care problems by type of primary arrangement Primary arrangement

In the past six months, how often did the following occur for the respondent, spouse, or partner due to a problem with child care (does not include child being sick)?

FFN care in child’s own

home n=85

FFN care someone

else’s homen=58

Licensed family child

care n=23

Center- based care

n=60 Total

N=240 Missed an entire day of work 21.2% 12.1% 21.7% 21.7% 18.8% Late for work or left early 25.9% 19.0% 21.7% 20.0% 22.9% Quality of work suffered worrying about child 11.8% 10.3% 4.3% 10.0% 10.4% Could not work overtime 21.2% 19.0% 13.0% 30.0% 23.8% Changed shifts or schedule 22.4% 20.7% 17.4% 28.3% 23.3% Worked fewer hours 24.7% 8.6% 26.1% 26.7% 22.1% Did not get a raise or promotion 7.1% 0.0% 0.0% 8.3% 5.0% Quit job or was fired 9.4% 3.4% 0.0% 8.3% 6.7%

Source: CCAP survey of parents Note: “Primary arrangement” is the one in which the randomly selected child spends the most time. Self care and supervised activities are excluded due to small Ns. Columns may not equal 100 percent due to rounding.

37. Work-related child care problems by type of primary arrangement (continued) Primary arrangement

Of households who lost time from work, how often in the past six months:

FFN care in child’s own

home n=35

FFN care someone

else’s homen=23

Licensed family child

care n=10

Center- based care

n=30 Total

N=106 Rarely 45.7% 65.2% 60.0% 56.7% 52.8% Sometimes 42.9% 30.4% 40.0% 26.7% 35.8% Often 11.4% 4.3% 0.0% 16.7% 11.3%

Source: CCAP survey of parents Note: “Primary arrangement” is the one in which the randomly selected child spends the most time. Self care and supervised activities are excluded due to small Ns. Columns may not equal 100 percent due to rounding.


38. Work-related child care problems by age of randomly selected child

Age of child In the past six months, how often did the following occur for the respondent, his/her spouse or partner due to a problem with child care (does not include child being sick)?

0-5 n=155

6-12 n=85

Total N=240

Missed an entire day of work 20.0% 16.5% 18.8%

Late for work or left early 25.2% 18.8% 22.9%

Quality of work suffered worrying about child 10.3% 10.6% 10.4%

Could not work overtime 25.8% 20.0% 23.8%

Changed shifts or schedule 27.1% 16.5% 23.3%

Worked fewer hours 26.5% 14.1% 22.1%

Did not get a raise or promotion 5.8% 3.5% 5.0%

Quit job or was fired 7.7% 4.7% 6.7%

Of households who lost time from work, how often did this occur in the past 6 months?

Rarely 53.2% 51.7% 52.8%

Sometimes 37.7% 31.0% 35.8%

Often 9.1% 17.2% 11.3%


39. Kind of problem that caused loss of time from work

Kind of problem Total N=92

Provider not available/scheduling problems 56.0%

Provider had personal problems 18.7%

Provider was ill 12.1%

Provider’s family was ill 8.8%

Transportation problems/provider was late 4.4%

Source: CCAP survey of parents Note: Response to open-ended question, grouped by category.


Profile of FFN caregivers serving Child Care Assistance Program families This section describes the sample of Minnesota FFN caregivers and their households who are registered and serving CCAP families. Potential participants were randomly selected from lists provided by Hennepin, Anoka and Koochiching counties and from the Minnesota Department of Human Services (DHS) for Brown and Nicollet counties. In order to be included in the sample, FFN caregivers were receiving CCAP funds to watch at least one child who is 12 or younger on a regular (weekly) basis.

Caregiver demographics

As shown in Figure 40, FFN caregivers are primarily female (94 percent). FFN caregivers range in age from under 20 to over 50, with over one-quarter of respondents ages 40 to 49 and another 40 percent ages 50 and older.

Slightly over half of FFN caregivers are White, about one-fourth are Black or African American, and about one-tenth are Somali. Other groups represented include Latino/ Hispanic (3 percent), American Indian (2 percent) and Asian (1 percent). About 5 percent identify themselves as multiracial or “other.”

About half of FFN caregivers are married, and 86 percent have children. For most (83 percent), their oldest child is 13 years or older.

A little over one-third of FFN caregivers have a paying job in addition to child care.


40. FFN caregiver demographics

Total

N=213

Gender

Male 6.1%

Female 93.9%

Age

Under 20 4.3%

20-29 16.0%

30-39 10.8%

40-49 27.8%

50 or older 39.7%

Missing/refused 1.4%

Race

White or Caucasian 53.1%

Black or African American 25.4%

Somali 9.9%

Hispanic or Latino 2.8%

American Indian 2.3%

Asian 0.9%

Multiracial or other 5.2%


Marital status

Married 49.8%

Living together in a marriage-like arrangement, but not legally married 3.3%

Separated 5.2%

Divorced 16.4%

Widowed 6.6%

Never married 18.8%

Parent

Yes 85.9%

No 14.1%


Source: CCAP survey of caregivers


40. FFN caregiver demographics (continued)

Total

N=213

Number of children

Zero 14.1%

One 9.9%

Two 22.5%

Three 19.2%

Four 14.6%

Five or more 19.7%

Age of oldest child N=183

Under 1 1.1%

1-2 0.5%

3-5 4.9%

6-9 6.0%

10-12 4.9%

13 and older 82.5%

Mean age of oldest child 26.4

Paid job or jobs, in addition to taking care of children

Yes 36.6%

No 63.4%


FFN caregiver background and language

Note: The findings in this section are strongly influenced by the inclusion of Hennepin County as one of the five study counties.

As shown in Figure 41, most FFN caregivers serving CCAP families were born in the United States (83 percent). Seventeen percent were born in other countries such as Somalia (13 percent) or Liberia (2 percent). For those born outside the United States, 14 percent have been in the United States for two years or less. A little less than 20 percent have been in the United States over 15 years. The average amount of time in the United States is nine years and four months.

English is the native language of 82 percent of FFN caregivers serving CCAP families. The native languages of other respondents include Somali (13 percent), Spanish (3


percent) and Hmong (1 percent). Similarly, 85 percent of FFN caregivers primarily speak English at home; 15 percent primarily speak another language at home, including Somali (12 percent), Spanish (3 percent) and Hmong (1 percent).

41. FFN caregiver background and language

Total Country of origin N=213

United States 82.6%

Another country 17.4%

Somalia 12.7%

Liberia 2.3%

Other 2.4%

Length of residence in the U.S. N=37

Zero-two years 13.5%

Three-five years 37.8%

Six-nine years 13.5%

10-15 years 16.2%

More than 15 years 18.9%

Mean number of years in U.S. (for those not born in U.S.) 9.3

Native language N=213

English 82.2%

Somali 12.7%

Spanish 2.8%

Hmong 0.9%

Other 1.0%


Language usually speaks at home N=213

English 85.0%

Somali 11.7%

Spanish 2.8%

Hmong 0.5%



Demographics of FFN caregiver households

As shown in Figure 42, about 11 percent of FFN caregiver households serving CCAP families consist of one person; 42 percent consist of two to three people; 41 percent consist of four to six people; and 6 percent consist of seven or more.

About 18 percent of FFN caregiver households have one adult, 47 percent have two adults and 35 percent have three or more adults living in the home. About 79 percent of FFN caregiver households have no teenagers living in the home; 13 percent have one; 6 percent have two; and 2 percent have three. About half have no children under 12 living in the home; 20 percent have one; 16 percent have two; 8 percent have three; 2 percent have four; and 1 percent have five.

About half of FFN caregiver respondents with children ages 12 and younger take care of their own children all or most of the time while providing FFN care, 8 percent do some of the time, and 37 percent never do.

About half of CCAP FFN caregivers own their own home, compared with 79 percent of FFN caregivers in the statewide FFN survey.

About three-fourths of respondents currently live in the two Twin Cities metro counties included in this survey. The other fourth live in the three rural Minnesota counties included in this survey.

Figure 43 shows that about half of FFN households have annual income below $30,000, compared with 26 percent in the statewide FFN survey.


42. Characteristics of FFN households

Total

N=213 Number of people in household

One 10.8% Two-three 42.3% Four-six 40.8% Seven or more 6.1%

Number of adults (18 and older) in household One 18.4% Two 47.2% Three 24.1% Four 7.1% Five or more 3.3%

Number of teens (13 to 17) in household Zero 78.8% One 13.2% Two 6.1% Three 1.9%

Number of children age 12 and younger in household N=212 Zero 52.4% One 20.3% Two 16.0% Three 7.5% Four 2.4% Five 1.4%

Frequency of taking care of their own children when providing FFN care (households with children ages 12 and younger only) N=101

All of the time 43.6% Most of the time 11.9% Some of the time 7.9% Never 36.6%

Home ownership N=213 Yes 54.5% No 45.5%

Geographic area of residence N-213 Twin Cities metro area counties surveyed 74.6% Rural Minnesota counties surveyed 25.4%

Source: CCAP survey of caregivers Note: Category totals may vary from 100 percent due to rounding.


43. Household income of FFN caregivers serving CCAP families

Household income before taxes from all sources and all members Total

N=213 Under $10,000 15.1%

$10,000-$19,999 18.8%

$20,000-$29,999 19.3%

$30,000-$39,999 11.3%

$40,000-$49,999 6.1%

$50,000-$99,999 18.7%

$100,000 and above 1.4%



FFN caregiver’s relationship to child

As shown in Figure 44, over half of caregivers are the randomly selected child’s grandparent; 16 percent are a friend of the family; 14 percent are an aunt or uncle; and 10 percent are an acquaintance or babysitter. Other relative caregivers, siblings, neighbors and cousins each make up less than 3 percent of caregivers.

There are no significant differences regarding the caregiver’s relationship to the child based on the age of the child.

44. FFN caregiver’s relationship to randomly selected child

FFN caregiver’s relationship to child Total

N=213 Grandmother/grandfather 51.2%

Friend of family 16.4%

Aunt/uncle 14.1%

Acquaintance or babysitter 10.3%

Other relative 2.8%

Sibling (over age 12) 2.3%

Neighbor 1.9%

Cousin 0.9%

Source: CCAP survey of caregivers Note: The category “Grandmother/grandfather” includes great grandparents.


Profile of children in FFN care paid for by CCAP This section describes the sample of children in FFN care paid for by Minnesota Child Care Assistance Program (CCAP).

If an FFN caregiver is registered with a county as a legal non-licensed provider in order to be eligible for reimbursement from CCAP, the FFN care is limited to caring for relatives and children from one other family, but without a limit to the number of children being cared for at the same time.

Researchers interviewed one adult per household, who answered general questions about the child care and provided detailed information for one randomly selected child from the children cared for by the FFN caregiver.

Demographics

Fifty-three percent of all children in FFN care are male, and 47 percent are female (see Figure 45). The randomly selected children have the same distributions.

Fifty-seven percent of all children in care are under the age of 6, and 43 percent are ages 6 to 12. Randomly selected children are slightly younger overall, with 66 percent under age 6 and 34 percent ages 6 to 12.

About 40 percent of the randomly selected children are White, 25 percent Black or African American, 10 percent Somali, 4 percent Hispanic or Latino, 1 percent American Indian and 1 percent Asian (see Figure 46). Eighteen percent are some other race or multiracial.

Children under age 6 are more likely to be White (46 percent) than children ages 6 to 12 (30 percent). Conversely, children ages 6 to 12 are more likely to be Black or African American (33 percent) than children under age 6 (21 percent).

About 17 percent of children have families who are from an immigrant or refugee group; 11 percent are Somali, 2 percent Liberian, 2 percent South or Central American, 1 percent European and less than 1 percent Hmong.

Most of the randomly selected children speak English in their homes (87 percent) and also with their FFN caregivers (85 percent).


45. Gender and age of children in FFN care

All children in care N=580

Randomly selected child

N=213 Gender

Male 53.4% 53.1% Female 46.6% 46.9% Missing/refused 0.0% 0.0%

Age 0-5 years 56.9% 65.7% 6-12 years 43.2% 34.3% Missing/refused 0.0% 0.0%


46. Race or ethnicity and language of randomly selected children in FFN care by child’s age

Age of child 0-5 6-12 Total Child’s race or ethnicity n=140 n=73 N=213

White or Caucasian 46.4% 30.1% 40.8%

Black or African American 20.7% 32.9% 24.9%

Somali 10.0% 9.6% 9.9%

Hispanic or Latino 2.9% 5.5% 3.8%

American Indian 1.4% 0.0% 0.9%

Asian 0.7% 1.4% 0.9%

Multiracial or other 17.1% 20.5% 18.3%

Missing/refused 0.7% 0.0% 0.5% Percent of children whose family is from an immigrant group n=139 n=72 N=211

Somali 11.5% 11.1% 11.3%

South/Central American 2.2% 1.4% 1.9%

Liberian 1.4% 2.8% 1.9%

European 0.7% 1.4% 0.9%

Hmong 0.0% 1.4% 0.5%

Family not from an immigrant group 84.2% 81.9% 83.4%



46. Race or ethnicity and language of randomly selected children in FFN care by child’s age (continued)

Age of child

0-5 6-12 Total

Language spoken at home and language spoken with caregiver

Language spoken at home n=140 n=73 N=213

English 85.7% 89.0% 86.9%

Somali 13.6% 9.6% 12.2%

Spanish 0.0% 1.4% 0.5%

Hmong 0.7% 0.0% 0.5%

Language spoken with caregiver n=140 n=73 N=213

English 85.7% 82.2% 84.5%

Somali 13.6% 11.0% 12.7%

Spanish 0.0% 5.5% 1.9%

Hmong 0.7% 1.4% 0.9%


Special needs

As shown in Figure 47, almost 20 percent of FFN caregivers surveyed say that the child they care for has special needs (medical, physical, emotional, developmental or behavioral) that affect the way they take care of the child.

FFN caregivers more commonly report that the school-age children have special needs than do the children under age 6 (26 percent versus 15 percent).

47. Special needs of randomly selected children by child’s age

Age of child Any special needs that affect the way provider takes care of child (medical, physical, emotional, developmental or behavioral)?

0-5 n=139

6-12 n=73

Total N=212

Yes 15.0% 26.0% 18.8%

No 85.0% 74.0% 81.2%



Profile of FFN care paid for by CCAP This section describes when and where FFN care is provided, how often and at what cost. The 1999 and 2004 Minnesota Household Child Care Surveys and other studies of informal care have found that FFN care is often used at times of the day and week when licensed care is not readily available and when the cost of care is too high for families with lower incomes.15

FFN care is eligible for reimbursement from the Minnesota Child Care Assistance Program (CCAP). To receive payment under CCAP, legal non-licensed providers are limited to caring for relatives or children from one other family, but without a limit to the number of children being cared for at the same time. FFN caregivers who are registered with a county in order to be eligible for reimbursement through the Child Care Assistance Program are required to pass a criminal background check. Otherwise, FFN care has no restrictions. FFN providers’ care is paid for on an hourly basis and is 80 percent of the maximum reimbursement available to licensed family child care providers. Parents are responsible for CCAP copayments and charges that exceed CCAP reimbursement rates.

Number of children receiving child care assistance

Over half of all FFN caregivers caring for children receiving child care assistance are taking care of one (29 percent) or two (26 percent) children ages 12 and younger on a regular basis, and 46 percent are taking care of three or more children (see Figure 48).

48. Number of children receiving child care assistance in FFN child care Number of children receiving child care assistance that FFN caregivers usually care for on a regular basis

Total N=211

One 28.6%

Two 25.8%

Three 19.2%

Four 11.3%

Five or more 15.0%


Note: “Regular” child care arrangements are those used at least once per week in the previous two weeks.

15 Chase, R., et al. 2005. Child Care Use in Minnesota, Statewide Household Child Care Survey. St. Paul,

MN: Minnesota Department of Human Services. Susman-Stillman, A. 2004. Family, Friend and Neighbor Care: Promoting Quality Care and

Children’s Healthy Development. Sacramento, CA: First 5 California and ETR Associates.


Child care schedule and location for all children

As shown in Figure 49, over half of FFN caregivers caring for children receiving child care assistance provide child care for 40 or more hours per week; an additional 12 percent provide care 30 to 39 hours per week; 17 percent provide care 20 to 29 hours per week, and 8 percent 11 to 19 hours per week. Slightly under 10 percent provide care 10 hours a week or less. On average, FFN caregivers provide child care a little less than 38 hours per week.

FFN caregivers in the metro study counties are more likely than caregivers in the rural study counties to provide care 40 or more hours per week (58 percent versus 41 percent).

As shown in Figure 49, in terms of schedule, 90 percent of FFN caregivers provide care during standard weekday hours (7 a.m. to 6 p.m.). Seventy-one percent provide care in the evenings (6 p.m. to 10 p.m.), and 71 percent on weekends. Sixty-one percent provide care in the early morning (before 7 a.m.), and 55 percent provide care after 10 p.m..

FFN caregivers in the rural study counties serving CCAP families are more likely than caregivers in the metro study counties to provide care in the early morning (69 percent versus 59 percent), in the evening (82 percent versus 69 percent), during the night (69 percent versus 50 percent) and on weekends (80 percent versus 69 percent).

About three-fourths of FFN care is provided in the caregiver’s home, 20 percent is provided in the children’s home and 3 percent is provided “some other place.”

Caregivers in the metro study counties are more likely than caregivers in the rural study counties to provide child care in the children’s home (23 percent versus 11 percent).

49. Child care times and places (all care) by location Location of FFN caregiver

Metro n=159

Rural n=54

Total N=213

Number of hours provide FFN care in a typical week Less than five 1.3% 1.9% 1.4% Five-10 8.2% 7.4% 8.0% 11-19 6.9% 11.1% 8.0% 20-29 14.5% 24.1% 16.9% 30-39 11.3% 14.8% 12.2% 40 or more 57.9% 40.7% 53.5% Mean hours per typical week 38.8 34.6 37.7



49. Child care times and places (all care) by location (continued)

Location of FFN caregiver

Metro n=159

Rural n=54

Total N=213

Times of the week available to provide FFN care (multiple responses)

Standard weekday, any time from about 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. (includes after school) 91.2% 87.0% 90.1%

Early mornings before 7 a.m. (after the children wake up) 58.5% 68.5% 61.0%

Evenings from about 6 p.m. to 10 p.m. 67.9% 81.5% 71.4%

Late nights after 10 p.m. 49.7% 68.5% 54.5%

Weekends 68.6% 79.6% 71.4%

Usual place of care

In caregiver’s own home 75.5% 79.6% 76.5%

In child’s own home 23.3% 11.1% 20.2%

Some other place 1.3% 9.3% 3.3%


Child care schedule and location for randomly selected children receiving child care assistance

About three-quarters of the FFN caregivers provide care to the randomly selected child receiving child care assistance at least five days a week, including 12 percent who provide care seven days a week (see Figure 50).

FFN caregivers are more likely to care for children ages 6 to 12 for just five days a week (69 percent versus 54 percent for children under age 6).

About three-fourths of the FFN caregivers, regardless of the child’s age, provide care five to 10 hours per day in a typical week. On average, FFN caregivers provide care to the randomly selected child a little over eight hours per day.

Eighty-five percent of FFN caregivers provide care during standard weekday hours (7 a.m. to 6 p.m.).

Children under age 6 are more likely to receive care during standard weekday hours (89 percent) than children ages 6 to 12 (78 percent).


About half of the FFN caregivers provide care to the randomly selected children in the evenings (between 6 p.m. and 10 p.m.) and on the weekends. In addition, about one-third provide care in the early morning (before 7 a.m.) and in the late night (after 10 p.m.).

About three-fourths of FFN caregivers provide care in the child’s home (see Figure 51).

Non-relative caregivers are more likely than relative caregivers to provide care in the child’s home (30 percent versus 16 percent). Conversely, relative caregivers are more likely than non-relative caregivers to provide care in their own home (81 percent versus 66 percent).

50. Profile of FFN care by age of randomly selected child receiving child care assistance

Age of child

0-5

n=140 6-12 n=73

Total N=213

In a typical week, number of days caregiver usually cares for child

One 4.3% 6.8% 5.2% Two 5.7% 5.5% 5.6% Three 7.9% 2.7% 6.1% Four 12.1% 4.1% 9.4% Five 53.6% 68.5% 58.7% Six 3.6% 2.7% 3.3% Seven 12.9% 9.6% 11.7%

Mean days per typical week 4.7 4.7 4.7 In a typical week, number of hours per day caregiver usually cares for child

Less than five 15.0% 15.1% 15.0% Five-10 72.9% 75.3% 73.7% 11-19 9.3% 6.8% 8.5% 20-24 2.9% 2.7% 2.8%

Average hours per day 8.15 8.16 8.15 Times of the week caregiver usually cares for child

Standard weekday, any time from about 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. (includes after school) 89.3% 78.1% 85.4% Before 7 a.m. (after the children wake up) 34.3% 41.1% 36.6% Evenings from about 6 p.m. to 10 p.m. 55.0% 49.3% 53.1% Late nights after 10 p.m. 30.0% 37.0% 32.4% Weekends 50.7% 49.3% 50.2%



51. Child care places for randomly selected child receiving child care assistance by relationship of caregiver to child

Relationship of FFN caregiver to child

Usual place of care Relatives

n=152

Non-Relatives

n=61 Total

N=213

In FFN caregiver’s home 80.9% 65.6% 76.5%

In the child’s home 16.4% 29.5% 20.2%

Some other place 2.6% 4.9% 3.3%


Child care payment

Eighty percent of FFN caregivers receive payment for taking care of the child. On average, FFN caregivers receive $41.97 per week for this child.

Non-relative caregivers are more likely than relative caregivers to receive payment (89 percent versus 77 percent).

On average, non-relative caregivers receive higher payments per week ($59.32) than do relative caregivers ($33.31).

Payments received for children under age 6 and children ages 6 to 12 do not differ significantly.

Some FFN caregivers receive payment in forms other than money. Specifically, 16 percent of FFN caregivers receive meals, and 12 percent are provided with transportation or use of a car. Eight percent say the child’s parents take care of their children sometimes, 4 percent receive reduced-cost or free living space, and 6 percent receive some other kind of payment or trade.


Quality of FFN care paid for by CCAP This section describes the quality of FFN care from the caregivers’ perspective. It includes measures of caregiver formal training and education; caregiver informal education, such as what caregivers have learned from their own experience and what knowledge about child development has been passed down from generation to generation; reliability of care; closeness of the relationship between caregivers and parents and between caregivers and children; and the extent of activities that promote or inhibit child development.

The Minnesota Department of Human Services, early childhood care and education professionals and advocates for school readiness are concerned about the quality of FFN care, particularly care paid for with public child care subsidies. Most of the research suggests that children in informal settings, compared with licensed settings, are less likely to engage in activities or to use materials that promote literacy and learning, are less safe, and are more likely to watch television.16 In short, FFN care is often considered deficient compared with licensed care. This study, however, does not start with that premise. Rather, this study was designed to explore both the inherent strengths and the shortcomings of FFN care.

Experience and training of CCAP FFN caregivers

Almost 19 percent of CCAP FFN caregivers have not completed high school; 41 percent completed high school only; 30 percent have some college education; 9 percent completed college; and 1 percent attended graduate or professional school (see Figure 52).

Of the 38 FFN caregivers who say that English is not their first language, 8 percent say they have “excellent” English speaking skills, and 26 percent say they have “poor” English speaking skills. Similarly, 8 percent say their English reading and writing skills are “excellent,” and 21 percent say their reading and writing skills are “poor.”

16 Whitebook, M., Phillips, D., Bellm, D., Almaraz, M. and Yong Jo, J. 2004. Two Years in Early Care

and Education: A community portrait of quality and workforce stability. Center for the Study of Child Care Employment, University of California at Berkeley and Department of Psychology, Georgetown University, pg 8.


52. FFN caregiver education and English language proficiency

Total

Highest level of education completed N=211

Eighth grade or lower 8.5%

Some high school 10.0%

High school graduate or GED 41.2%

Some college (includes two-year degree/technical college) 29.9%

College graduate (bachelor’s degree) 9.0%

Post-graduate work or professional school 1.4%

English speaking skills of individuals who said that English is not their first language N=38

Excellent 7.9%

Good 23.7%

Fair 42.1%

Poor 26.3%

English reading and writing skills of individuals who said that English is not their first language N=38

Excellent 7.9%

Good 39.5%

Fair 31.6%

Poor 21.1%


Experience of FFN caregivers

As shown in Figure 53, about 10 percent of caregivers have been providing FFN child care for less than a year. Almost half have been providing FFN care for one to two years (27 percent) or three to four years (20 percent); 13 percent have been providing FFN care for five to seven years, and 9 percent for eight to 10 years. Notably, about one-fifth have been providing FFN care for 11 years or more. On average, FFN caregivers have been providing FFN care for 6.7 years.

FFN caregivers in the metro and rural study counties are similar with regard to number of years providing FFN care.


53. Number of years providing child care

Number of years caring for children Total

N=213

Zero 10.3%

One to two 27.2%

Three to four 20.2%

Five to seven 13.1%

Eight to 10 8.9%

11 or more 20.2%

Mean number of years caring for children 6.7


As shown in Figure 54, 16 percent of FFN caregivers serving CCAP families have been employed (15 percent) or currently are employed (1 percent) as a teacher’s aide or child care teacher in a licensed child care center or program.

Relative and non-relative caregivers are similar in this regard.

Fourteen percent of FFN caregivers are either currently licensed (6 percent) or were licensed in the past (8 percent) as family child care providers.

Relative caregivers are more likely than non-relative caregivers to have been a licensed child care provider in the past (10 percent versus 2 percent).

54. FFN caregivers’ professional child care experience

Total

N=212 Have ever been employed as a teacher’s aide or child care teacher in a licensed child care center or program

Yes, currently 1.4%

Yes, in the past 15.0%

No 83.6%

Have ever been a licensed family child care provider

Yes, currently 6.1%

Yes, in the past 7.5%

No 86.3%



Motivation for caregiving

FFN caregivers were asked the main reasons they choose to provide FFN child care (see Figure 55). The most common reason is to help a family member or friend (54 percent), followed by liking children and thinking child care is fun (22 percent) and in order to provide safe, quality care (21 percent).

Relative caregivers are more likely than non-relative caregivers to report that their main reason for providing FFN child care is to help a family member or friend (64 percent versus 30 percent) or to provide safe, quality care (27 percent versus 7 percent).

Non-relative caregivers are more likely than relative caregivers to report that their main reason for providing FFN child care is that they like children and think it is fun (49 percent versus 11 percent).

Twenty-three percent of non-relative caregivers provide care in order to earn money, compared to 13 percent of relative caregivers.

55. FFN caregiver motivation, by relationship to child Relationship of FFN

caregiver to child

Main reasons caregivers provide child care Relatives

n=151

Non-relatives

n=61 Total

N=212

To help a family member or friend 64.2% 29.5% 54.2%

I like children and it’s fun 10.6% 49.2% 21.7%

To provide safe, quality care 27.2% 6.6% 21.2%

To earn money 13.2% 23.0% 16.0%

To provide less expensive care 11.3% 8.2% 10.4%

To be home with my children 2.6% 8.2% 4.2%

To provide care during off-hours 5.3% 1.6% 4.2%

To provide special needs care 3.3% 3.3% 3.3%

Other 2.6% 1.6% 2.4%



FFN caregiver training and education

In terms of formal education and training, about half of FFN caregivers have participated in parent education (see Figure 56). More than one-third have participated in a child care training program through a church, community organization or government agency. About one-quarter have taken college classes in child development, nutrition or health and safety; and about two-fifths have gone to workshops on those topics.

Most FFN caregivers report they have learned about children from their own experience, learned from what was passed on from parents or extended family (91 percent) and are self-taught about parenting and child care through reading books or watching educational videos on those subjects (81 percent).

Relative and non-relative caregivers are similar in this regard.

Informal resources for FFN caregivers

From a list read to them, FFN caregivers most commonly report using the following informal resources to learn about child care: educational television (81 percent), fact sheets or pamphlets (71 percent) and the public library (71 percent).

Caregivers in metro study counties are more likely than caregivers in rural Minnesota study counties to use a doctor or clinic (67 percent versus 54 percent) or a bookmobile (16 percent versus 4 percent) to learn about child care.

Relative caregivers are more likely than non-relative caregivers to use the public library (74 percent versus 64 percent), attend health fairs (34 percent versus 23 percent) or make use of a child care outreach program (26 percent versus 16 percent) to learn about child care.

Non-relative caregivers are more likely than relative caregivers to use the Internet (48 percent versus 38 percent) to learn about child care.


56. FFN parenting and child care training and education

Formal classes Total

N=213

Have ever participated in parent education, either Early Childhood Family Education or another program 50.7%

Have ever participated in a child care training program through a church, community organization or government agency 37.6%

Have ever taken any college classes in child development, nutrition or health and safety 23.0%

Have ever gone to any workshops on those topics 39.0%

Informal learning

Learned about children from own experience 98.6%

Learned from what was passed on from parents or extended family 91.0%

Self-taught by reading books or watching educational videos on those subjects 81.2%

Resources caregiver has used to get information about children and their needs (from a list)

Educational TV 80.8%

Fact sheets or pamphlets 71.4%

A public library 70.9%

A doctor or clinic 63.4%

Child care or teacher magazines 45.5%

The Internet 40.8%

Health fairs 30.5%

A child care outreach program 23.1%

A college or university library 17.4%

A bookmobile 13.1%

An 800 number for caregivers 4.2%



Reliability (randomly selected child’s FFN caregiver)

As shown in Figure 57, most FFN caregivers are able to provide child care overnight for several continuous days (93 percent). Eighty-seven percent are able to provide child care when the child is sick.

Relative caregivers are more likely than non-relative caregivers to be able to provide child care overnight for continuous days (95 percent versus 85 percent) and to be able to provide child care when the child is sick (92 percent versus 75 percent).

FFN caregivers were asked the number of times in the past three months that they were unable to provide care for any reason. Overall, 68 percent say they had not missed a day of care; 23 percent missed one to two days; 6 percent missed three to seven days; and 3 percent missed more than seven days.

FFN caregivers are more likely to be unable to care for children under age 6 (39 percent) for one or more days in the past three months than for children ages 6 to 12 (19 percent).

About two-thirds of caregivers have someone other than the child’s parents who they could count on to provide child care if they are unable to do it (see Figure 58). About one-fourth of FFN caregivers say that it is the parent’s responsibility to find a substitute.

About 96 percent of FFN caregivers either strongly agree (65 percent) or agree (31 percent) that they would watch the child under their care for as long as the parent wanted them to.

These indicators of reliability are similar regardless of the caregivers’ relationship to the child and the child’s age.


57. Indicators of FFN caregiver reliability by relationship to age of child Relationship of FFN

caregiver to child

Available to provide ongoing care for child overnight or when child is sick

Relativesn=152

Non-relatives

n=61 Total

N=213

Overnight for several days on end 95.4% 85.2% 92.5%

When child is sick 92.1% 75.0% 87.3%

Age of child Number of times in the past three months caregiver was unable to provide care for any reason

0-5 n=139

6-12 n=73

Total N=212

Zero 60.7% 80.6% 67.7%

One to two 27.1% 16.4% 23.2%

Three to seven 8.2% 1.5% 5.8%

More than seven 4.1% 1.5% 3.2%


58. Other indicators of caregiver reliability

Caregiver has someone other than child’s parent to count on to help take care of child if unable to do it

Total N=212

Yes, there is someone to usually count on 65.1%

No, there is no one to usually count on 10.4%

It is parent’s responsibility to find substitute 24.5%

Will watch child as long as parents want

Strongly agree 64.8%

Agree 31.0%

Disagree 2.8%

Strongly disagree 1.4%

Caregiver often feels that she or he wants to stop taking care of child

Strongly agree 2.8%

Agree 5.2%

Disagree 34.0%

Strongly disagree 58.0%



Caregiver relationship with child and parents

Relationship between caregiver and randomly selected child

FFN caregivers were asked about the length of time they have been providing care for the randomly selected child (see Figure 59). A little less than one-third of FFN caregivers have provided care for less than a year, 18 percent have provided care one to two years, 22 percent two to three years, 9 percent three to four years and 22 percent four or more years. This may or may not have been paid for by CCAP the entire time.

Non-relative caregivers are more likely than relative caregivers to have provided care for the child for less than one year (53 percent versus 23 percent). Conversely, relative caregivers are more likely than non-relative caregivers to have provided child care for four years or more (28 percent versus 7 percent).

Over half (57 percent) of FFN caregivers saw the randomly selected child they care for daily or almost every day before they started to provide child care. Nine percent of FFN caregivers did not have any contact with the child before they started providing care. The vast majority of FFN caregivers (98 percent) define their relationship with the child prior to providing child care as very close (89 percent) or close (9 percent).

Relative caregivers (69 percent) are more likely to have seen the child daily than non-relative caregivers (30 percent).

Understandably, non-relative caregivers (21 percent) are more likely than relative caregivers (4 percent) to have had no contact with the child before providing care.

Relative caregivers are more likely than non-relative caregivers to define their relationship with the child before providing care as very close (91 percent versus 77 percent).

About 95 percent of FFN caregivers strongly agree (55 percent) or agree (40 percent) that they often feel that taking care of the child is the best part of their day.


59. Characteristics of relationship between FFN caregiver and child Relationship of FFN

caregiver to child

Relatives

n=152

Non-relatives

n=61 Total

N=213

Number of years caregiver has cared for child on a regular basis, meaning at least once a week

Less than one year 23.0% 52.5% 31.5%

One-two years 19.1% 14.8% 17.8%

Two-three years 19.7% 21.3% 20.2%

Three-four years 9.9% 4.9% 8.5%

Four or more 28.3% 6.5% 22.1%

How often caregiver saw child before caregiving started

Daily or almost every day 68.5% 29.5% 57.1%

A few times a week 20.1% 23.0% 21.0%

A few times a month or monthly 5.4% 21.3% 10.0%

Every few months; a few times a year 2.0% 4.9% 2.9%

Not at all 4.0% 21.3% 9.0%

Closeness of relationship to child before caregiving began

Very close 91.1% 76.5% 89.0%

Somewhat close 8.9% 11.8% 9.3%

Not very close 0.0% 5.9% 0.8%

Not close at all 0.0% 5.9% 0.8%

Often feels that taking care of child is the best part of caregiver’s day

Strongly agree 57.2% 49.2% 54.9%

Agree 40.1% 39.3% 39.9%

Disagree 2.0% 11.5% 4.7%

Strongly disagree 0.7% 0.0% 0.5%

Source: CCAP survey of caregivers Note: Ns vary slightly due to missing/refused.


Relationship between FFN caregiver and parents

As shown in Figure 60, 90 percent of FFN caregivers say they frequently share information with parents regarding the child. Seventy-eight percent say they frequently talk about the child’s daily activities with parents; nearly 65 percent say they frequently discuss the child’s health and physical well-being; and 61 percent say they frequently discuss particular problems about the child. FFN caregivers less often plan activities with parents for the child (47 percent).

As shown in Figure 61, over three-fourths of FFN caregivers feel that the match between their child-rearing values and the parents’ is excellent (42 percent) or good (38 percent). About 16 percent describe the match as fair, and 5 percent describe it as poor.

Relative caregivers are more likely than non-relative caregivers to describe the match as “good” (41 percent versus 30 percent), while non-relative caregivers are more likely than relative caregivers to describe the match as “fair” (25 percent versus 12 percent).

This result does not vary by age of child.

A little less than half of FFN caregivers say they “never disagree” with parents about schedules, discipline, or what the child eats; an additional 28 percent say they “seldom” do. About 18 percent say they “occasionally” have disagreements, and 7 percent say they “frequently” do.

Relative caregivers are more likely to report occasional disagreements (22 percent) than non-relative caregivers (7 percent).

Most FFN caregivers (86 percent) report that they and the parents cooperate and work together “very well” to make sure the child gets what he or she needs; 11 percent say they cooperate “somewhat well.” In total, 3 percent say they cooperate and work together with the parents “somewhat poorly” (3 percent) or “very poorly” (<1 percent).

No significant differences exist based on relationship of the caregiver to the child or age of the child.

Most FFN caregivers “strongly disagree” (43 percent) or “disagree” (38 percent) that they feel taken advantage of by the child’s parents.

Non-relative caregivers are more likely than relative caregivers to feel taken advantage of by the child’s parents.

This feeling of being taken advantage of is not related to the age of the child.


60. Interaction between FFN caregivers and parents

In the past month, how often caregiver and the parents have: (N=213) Frequently Occasionally Seldom Never

Shared information about child 89.7% 8.0% 1.4% 0.9%

Planned activities for child 46.7% 26.9% 17.0% 9.4%

Discussed particular problems about child 61.0% 21.1% 15.0% 2.8%

Talked about child’s daily activities, such as what he/she does every morning or afternoon 78.3% 13.7% 5.7% 2.4%

Discussed child’s health and physical well-being 64.6% 22.2% 10.4% 2.8%


61. Relationship between FFN caregiver and parents Relationship of FFN

caregiver to child

Relatives

n=152

Non-relatives

n=61 Total

N=213

Match between caregiver’s and parents’ child-rearing values

Excellent 42.8% 38.3% 41.5%

Good 41.4% 30.0% 38.2%

Fair 11.8% 25.0% 15.6%

Poor 3.9% 6.7% 4.7%

How often caregiver and parents disagree about things like schedules, what child eats, or discipline

Frequently 4.6% 11.7% 6.6%

Occasionally 21.7% 6.7% 17.5%

Seldom 30.3% 23.3% 28.3%

Never 43.4% 58.3% 47.6%

Source: CCAP survey of caregivers Note: Ns may vary slightly due to missing/refused.


61. Relationship between FFN caregiver and parents (continued) Relationship of FFN

caregiver to child

Relatives

n=152

Non-relatives

n=61 Total

N=213

How well caregiver and parents cooperate and work together in making sure child’s needs are met

Very well 87.5% 81.7% 85.8%

Somewhat well 9.9% 13.3% 10.8%

Somewhat poorly 2.0% 5.0% 2.8%

Very poorly 0.7% 0.0% 0.5%

Caregiver feels that child’s parents are taking advantage

Strongly agree 7.2% 18.0% 10.3%

Agree 5.9% 14.8% 8.5%

Disagree 40.1% 32.8% 38.0%

Strongly disagree 46.7% 34.4% 43.2%

Source: CCAP survey of caregivers Note: Ns may vary slightly due to missing/refused.

Activities for children’s cognitive, social, emotional and physical development

FFN caregivers report performing and encouraging a wide range of activities to encourage children’s cognitive, social, emotional and physical development (see Figure 62). Cognitive development activities include reading, singing, playing games, doing creative activities, practicing language and math skills, doing puzzles and teaching about nature and science. Activities that promote social and emotional development include hugging and kissing the child, arranging for child to play with other children, passing on family or cultural values and traditions to the child, encouraging games requiring pretending and imagining and allowing the child to help the caregiver around the house. Physical development activities include going on outings to a tot area, park or playground; playing with toys or household items that can help them learn eye-hand coordination; playing outdoors, running, climbing, jumping or playing sports and participating in physical activities or lessons through a local business or organization.


For children under 2 years, the most common development activities (over 90 percent daily or most days) are hugging and kissing the child; playing with baby toys or household items; talking or cooing, telling stories or singing to child; and playing games such as peek-a-boo or games with child’s fingers and toes.

For children ages 2 to 5, FFN caregivers most often talk, tell stories or sing to child (94 percent daily or most days); practice language or math with child, such as reciting the alphabet, playing counting games, or doing puzzles (57 percent daily or most days); and have the child sing or read along with them or teach child the songs or stories (56 percent daily or most days).

Children ages 2 to 5 most often play with toys or household items that can help them learn hand-eye coordination (60 percent daily or most days); play “pretend” games by using toys and dolls, by dressing up, or by using their imagination to act out roles or stories (61.5 percent daily or most days); and play outdoors, running, climbing, jumping, or playing sports (53 percent daily or most days).

For children ages 6 to 12, caregivers most often talk, tell stories, or sing to child (62 percent daily or most days) and have child sing or read along with them including teaching children the songs or stories (71 percent daily or most days).

Children ages 6 to 12 most often play with other children (75 percent daily or most days) and play outdoors, like running, climbing, jumping, or playing sports (59 percent daily or most days).

62. Children’s developmental activities by age of randomly selected child

Children ages 0 to 1

For the days that you take care of child, how often do you: (N=165) Every day

Most days

Some days

Not very often

Hug and kiss 92.9% 4.8% 2.4% 0.0%

Play with baby toys or household items such as plastic bowls or cups 90.5% 2.4% 7.1% 0.0%

Talk or coo, tell stories or sing to child 88.1% 4.8% 7.1% 0.0%

Play games like peek-a-boo or games with child’s fingers and toes 83.3% 9.5% 7.1% 0.0%

Point to pictures or things and say what they are 69.0% 14.3% 9.5% 7.1%

Read to child 42.9% 28.6% 14.3% 14.3%

Get together with other children 35.7% 11.9% 23.8% 28.6%

Go on trips or outings to a tot area, park or playground 19.0% 16.7% 45.2% 19.0%

Take child with you when you visit other adult friends/relatives 19.0% 7.1% 35.7% 38.1%



62. Children’s developmental activities by age of randomly selected child (continued)

Children ages 2 to 5 For the days that you take care of child, how often do you: (N=96)

Every day

Most days

Some days

Not very often

Talk, tell stories or sing to child 80.2% 13.5% 5.2% 1.0%

Practice language or math with child, such as reciting alphabet or playing counting games or doing puzzles 57.3% 21.9% 13.5% 7.3%

Have child sing or read along with you or help child learn the songs or stories 56.3% 19.8% 16.7% 7.3%

Read to child 42.7% 21.9% 26.0% 9.4%

Do creative activities with child like drawing, painting or making something with household items 40.6% 17.7% 27.1% 14.6%

Help child learn something about nature, like watching bugs, looking at leaves or gardening 38.5% 16.7% 30.2% 14.6%

Pass on family or cultural values and traditions through stories, songs, dances or history 31.3% 13.5% 31.3% 24.0%

Children ages 2 to 5 For the days that you take care of child, how often would you say child does the following activity: (N=96)

Plays “pretend” games by using toys or dolls, dressing up or using imagination to act out roles or stories 61.5% 11.5% 19.8% 7.3%

Plays with toys or household items that can help child learn hand-eye coordination 60.4% 21.9% 11.5% 6.3%

Plays with other children 56.3% 12.5% 16.7% 14.6%

Plays outdoors, running, climbing, jumping or playing sports 53.1% 19.8% 20.8% 6.3%

Helps around the house 50.0% 8.3% 20.8% 20.8%

Goes with you when you visit other adult friends/relatives 25.0% 22.9% 27.1% 25.0%

Goes on trips or outings to a library, park or playground 12.5% 20.8% 54.2% 12.5%

Children ages 6 to 12 For the days that you take care of child, how often do you: (N=69)

Talk, tell stories or sing to child 62.3% 17.4% 10.1% 10.1%

Have child sing or read along with you or help child learn the songs or stories 46.4% 24.6% 18.8% 10.1%

Practice language or math with child or help with homework 40.6% 18.8% 26.1% 14.5%

Read to or with child 39.1% 20.3% 23.2% 17.4%

Do creative activities with child like drawing, painting or building something 33.3% 26.1% 23.2% 17.4%

Pass on family or cultural values and traditions through stories, songs, dances or history 29.0% 26.1% 30.4% 14.5%

Help child learn about nature or science 27.5% 14.5% 37.7% 20.3%



62. Children’s developmental activities by age of randomly selected child (continued)

Children ages 6 to 12 For the days that you take care of child, how often would you say child does the following activity: (N=69)

Every day

Most days

Some days

Not very often

Plays with other children 75.4% 10.1% 10.1% 4.3%

Plays outdoors, running, climbing, jumping or playing sports 59.4% 21.7% 15.9% 2.9%

Does homework 51.5% 11.8% 16.2% 20.6%

Helps around the house 33.3% 15.9% 29.0% 21.7%

Goes with you when you visit other adult friends/relatives 17.4% 18.8% 27.5% 36.2%

Goes on trips or outings to a library, park or playground 10.1% 26.1% 49.3% 14.5%

Participates in activities or lessons at a recreation center, library, church, camp, gym or sports facility 7.2% 11.6% 46.4% 34.8%


Children’s choices and social skills

FFN caregivers were asked what type of choices they give children and what specific things they do to increase children’s social skills. Their responses are grouped into the categories shown in Figure 63. For both age groups, a little less than half of caregivers let the child choose what activity to do (48 percent) and what to eat or wear (44 percent).

About one-fourth of FFN caregivers emphasize good behavior and manners with the child and teach the child how to respect and interact with others. About 10 percent teach social skills through stories, games or shows; take the child places (such as events, library, church); and talk and teach about values.

FFN caregivers are more likely to emphasize good behavior and manners with children under age 6 (30 percent) than children ages 6 to 12 (21 percent).

FFN caregivers are more likely to talk and teach about values with children age 6 to 12 (17 percent) than children under age 6 (5 percent).


63. Activities for children’s social and emotional development

Total

N=282 Kinds of choices FFN caregivers offer children

Which activity to do 47.5%

What to eat or wear 44.3%

When or where to do an activity 3.9%

When or where to go 2.1%

When and how to help with tasks 1.8%

Whether they need/want to help 0.4%

Kinds of things FFN caregivers do to help children learn social skills

Emphasize good behavior/manners 26.4%

Teach child how to respect and interact with others 25.6%

Talk and teach with stories/games/shows 12.0%

Take child places (events, library, church, etc.) 9.9%

Talk and teach about values (respect, culture, elders) 9.1%

Talk and teach (general) 7.9%

Teach child to be responsible and help with chores 4.1%

Teach child good communication 3.7%

Teach child to do things for him/herself 1.2%

Source: CCAP survey of caregivers Note: Categories derived from open-ended question. Multiple responses allowed, grouped into categories. Includes only caregivers who care for children ages 1 to 12 during daytime and evening hours (7 a.m. to 10 p.m.).

Television and videos

On average, FFN caregivers report that a television or video is on 3.2 hours per day (see Figure 64). Nine percent say that a television or video is not typically on; 49 percent say a television or video is on one to two hours; 29 percent say three to five hours; and 13 percent say six or more hours.

Average hours of having a television or video on is about one hour higher for children ages 6 to 12 (3.8 hours) than for children under 6 (2.9 hours).

About three-fourths of respondents report that the randomly selected child watches shows or videos designed for children every day (57 percent) or most days (20 percent). Less than 10 percent say the child never watches shows or videos designed for children.


Over three-fourths of respondents say that the randomly selected child never watches shows or videos that are designed for all ages such as talk shows, soap operas or movies; 7 percent say the child watches these shows or videos every day (2 percent) or most days (5 percent).

Children ages 6 to 12 are more likely to have watched shows or videos for people of all ages most days (8 percent) or some days (19 percent) than children under age 6 (4 percent and 10 percent).

Children under age 6 are more likely to never have watched these shows or videos (84 percent) than children ages 6 to 12 (72 percent).

64. Television and videos on a typical day by age of randomly selected child

Age of child

Number of estimated hours that a TV or video is on 0-5

n=139 6-12 n=73

Total N=212

0 7.2% 12.3% 9.0%

1-2 52.5% 42.4% 49.1%

3-5 28.0% 31.5% 29.2%

6 or more 12.2% 13.8% 12.7%

Mean number of hours that TV or video is on in a day 2.88 3.75 3.18

How often child watches shows or videos that are primarily for children, such as cartoons or educational

Every day 57.4% 54.7% 56.5%

Most days 19.4% 21.9% 20.2%

Some days 12.4% 20.3% 15.0%

Never 10.9% 3.1% 8.3%

How often child watches shows or videos that are for all ages, such as talk shows, soap operas or movies

Every day 2.3% 1.6% 2.1%

Most days 3.9% 7.8% 5.2%

Some days 10.1% 18.8% 13.0%

Never 83.7% 71.9% 79.8%



Ways of dealing with misbehavior

As shown in Figure 65, when dealing with serious misbehavior, FFN caregivers report numerous techniques. The most common is removing the child or putting the child in “time out” (54 percent). About one-fourth talk to the child about behavior and give warnings. About 6 percent distract the child or ignore the misbehavior, and 6 percent tell the child’s parents.

Children under age 6 are more likely to be removed or put in “time out” (57 percent) than children ages 6 to 12 (48 percent).

FFN caregivers are more likely to tell the parents about their child’s misbehavior if the child is 6 to 12 (13 percent) than if the child is under age 6 (2 percent).

In dealing with less serious misbehavior, FFN caregivers are more likely to talk to the children about the misbehavior and give warnings (62 percent). About 14 percent remove children or put them in time out, and more than 12 percent distract the children or ignore the misbehavior.

FFN caregivers are more likely to distract the child or ignore misbehavior of younger children (16 percent) than of those ages 6 to 12 (6 percent).

65. Ways of dealing with misbehavior by age of randomly selected child

Age of child

Main methods of dealing with behavior when child is seriously misbehaving

0-5 n=135

6-12 n=69

Total N=204

Remove child, put in "time out" 57.0% 47.8% 53.9%

Talk to child about behavior, give warnings 24.4% 31.9% 27.0%

Distract child or ignore the misbehavior 7.4% 4.3% 6.4%

Tell parents 2.2% 13.0% 5.9%

Give affection, hold child 3.7% 0.0% 2.5%

Withhold activity 1.5% 1.4% 1.5%

Yell or scold 0.7% 1.4% 1.0%

Withhold food 1.5% 0.0% 1.0%

Spank 0.7% 0.0% 0.5%

Child chooses punishment 0.7% 0.0% 0.5%

Source: CCAP survey of caregivers Note: Categories derived from open-ended question. Multiple responses allowed, grouped into categories.


65. Ways of dealing with misbehavior by age of randomly selected child (continued)

Age of child

Main methods of dealing with behavior when child is misbehaving in a less serious way

0-5 n=132

6-12 n=69

Total N=201

Talk to child about behavior, give warnings 59.1% 68.1% 62.2%

Remove child, put in "time out" 15.2% 11.6% 13.9%

Distract child or ignore the misbehavior 15.9% 5.8% 12.4%

Withhold activity 3.0% 4.3% 3.5%

Tell parents 2.3% 5.8% 3.5%

Yell or scold 0.8% 1.4% 1.0%

Withhold affection 1.5% 0.0% 1.0%

Spank 0.8% 0.0% 0.5%

Other 1.5% 1.4% 2.0%

Source: CCAP survey of caregivers Note: Categories derived from open-ended question. Multiple responses allowed, grouped into categories.


FFN caregiver needs and supports Sources of ideas and information

FFN caregivers were asked where they usually get ideas and information when a problem comes up in taking care of a child (see Figure 66). Respondents were asked to answer “yes” or “no” to each source of information or idea. Over half of FFN caregivers say that they get ideas from the child’s parent or guardian (51 percent). Otherwise, sources of information and ideas most commonly include family members (20 percent), books or library (16 percent), through their own experience or resources (13 percent) and from friends or neighbors (11 percent).

Caregivers in metro area study counties are more likely than caregivers in rural study counties to say that when confronted with a problem, they usually get information from the child’s parent or guardian (55 percent versus 39 percent).

Caregivers in rural study counties are more likely than caregivers in metro area study counties to report that they would try to work the problem out themselves (65 percent versus 52 percent).

66. FFN caregivers’ usual sources of help

When a problem comes up in taking care of a child, where do you usually get ideas or information?

Percent reporting

“Yes” N=213

Child’s parent or guardian 51.2%

Family member 20.2%

Books or library 15.5%

Work it out myself; rely on my own experience 13.1%

Friend or neighbor 10.8%

Doctor, hospital or clinic 8.9%

Another child care provider 6.6%

Teacher 4.7%

The Internet 4.7%

Other 5.6%

Source: CCAP survey of caregivers Note: Questions were answered as “Yes”/”No.” Multiple responses allowed.


Sources of encouragement and support

FFN caregivers were asked who they can count on for encouragement and emotional support for taking care of children (see Figure 67). Respondents were asked to answer “yes” or “no” to each source of support. Almost 90 percent of FFN caregivers say that they get support from the parents of the children in their care. Otherwise main sources of support come from a family member (85 percent), friends (77 percent) and from other people providing child care (50 percent).

For encouragement and emotional support, metro respondents are more likely than rural respondents to report they can count on their church or faith community, their ethnic community, a neighborhood resource center and a child care network.

67. FFN caregivers’ sources of encouragement and emotional support by location


When you need encouragement and emotional support for taking care of children, can you count on help from any of these sources?

Metro n=157

Rural n=54

Percent reporting

“Yes” N=211

The parents of the children in your care 88.1% 94.4% 89.7%

Family members 84.3% 87.0% 85.0%

Friends 77.4% 74.1% 76.5%

Other people providing child care 51.6% 44.4% 49.8%

Your church or faith community 50.6% 38.9% 47.6%

Members of your ethnic community 46.2% 27.8% 41.5%

Early childhood education program 36.7% 31.5% 35.4%

Neighborhood resource center 28.5% 16.7% 25.5%

Child care network or resource center 29.1% 13.0% 25.0%

Adults at a children’s play group 24.8% 24.1% 24.6%

Anyone or anyplace else 3.2% 1.9% 2.8%

Source: CCAP survey of caregivers Note: Questions were answered as “Yes”/”No” to each item. Multiple responses allowed.


Problems in providing care

As shown in Figure 68, the most commonly cited problems that make it difficult to provide child care are related to housing, food or utilities (16 percent rated as “a big problem”), followed closely by caregivers not having enough time for themselves (14 percent), disagreements with parents about paying for child care (13 percent), not having enough first aid supplies (12 percent), long or irregular work hours (12 percent) and not having enough toys or things to do (11 percent). The least common “big problem” is meeting the special needs of a child (3 percent). Overall, more FFN caregivers providing care to children receiving CCAP report problems than FFN caregivers statewide.

Not having enough toys or things to do is considered a bigger problem by non-relative caregivers (21 percent) than by relative caregivers (7 percent).

Non-relative caregivers are also more likely than relatives to report having “big problems” with regard to disagreements with parents about paying for child care (20 percent versus 11 percent) and not having enough time to themselves (23 percent versus 11 percent).

68. Usual problems FFN caregivers encounter

Things people sometimes mention as problems when providing child care. For you is this:

A big problem

A small problem

Not a problem

at all

Problems with housing, food or utilities that make providing child care difficult 15.6% 15.6% 68.9%

Not having enough time to yourself 14.1% 26.8% 59.2%

Disagreements with parents about paying for child care 13.1% 14.1% 72.8%

Not having enough first aid supplies 12.3% 14.6% 73.1%

Long or irregular work hours 12.2% 21.1% 66.7%

Not having enough toys or things to do 11.3% 25.8% 62.9%

Having to constantly change your plans and routines 8.9% 18.8% 72.3%

Feeling isolated or disconnected from your friends or your activities 7.1% 16.5% 76.4%

Being comfortable with disciplining other people’s children 3.8% 17.8% 78.4%

Meeting the special needs of a child in your care 2.8% 8.5% 88.7%



FFN caregiving resources and information, and interest in licensing An extensive literature review for First 5 California Family, Friend, and Neighbor Child Caregiver Support Project found that FFN caregivers are interested in improving the quality of the care they provide.17 Their requests for information and support fall into four categories: health/safety/nutrition, child development, business and financial issues and community resources and activities. Most of this information comes from qualitative and focus group studies and not from surveys such as this one.

The Minnesota Department of Human Services, Ready 4 K (a school readiness advocacy organization in Minnesota), and Families and Work Institute’s Sparking Connections are designing outreach and recruitment strategies to support FFN caregivers to improve the quality of care.18 This section, intended to inform the development and enhance the effectiveness of these strategies, describes the types of resources FFN caregivers already have access to, the ones they most commonly use and how helpful they are. When caregivers lacked access to a resource, researchers asked them how helpful it would be to have access and where they would prefer to obtain the information and support.

This section also documents the extent of FFN caregivers’ interest in becoming officially licensed as family child care providers and their reasons for and against it.

Access to caregiving resources and information

Resources for FFN caregivers

As shown in Figure 69, FFN caregivers say that the most helpful types of child care resources would be small grants to pay for books, games and materials (rated “very helpful” by 72 percent); a program through which they could get safety equipment and supplies (rated “very helpful” by 55 percent); and workshops to help them learn about caring for children (rated “very helpful” by 52 percent). Resources perceived to be the least helpful by caregivers include having trained individuals come to their homes to help them (rated “very helpful” by 39 percent) and drop-in or respite care for children so caregivers can have some time for themselves (rated “very helpful” by 32 percent).

17 Susman-Stillman, A. 2004. Family, Friend and Neighbor Care: Promoting Quality Care and

Children’s Healthy Development. Sacramento, CA: First 5 California and ETR Associates. 18 Sparking Connections is a national initiative to demonstrate and evaluate strategies to support FFN

caregivers through partnerships with retailers and other non-traditional partners. Resources for Child Caring in St. Paul is the Minnesota participant with funding by the McKnight Foundation.


Almost two-thirds of respondents say that they would find it “very helpful” to have access to a government subsidized food program to get nutritious food for the children in their care at no cost or low cost (see Figure 70).

A higher percent of FFN caregivers in the metro area rate every resource as “very helpful” than FFN caregivers in rural Minnesota.

Non-relative caregivers are more likely than relative caregivers to rate having someone to call when they are facing a problem with a child or with the child’s parents as “very helpful” (62 percent versus 40 percent).


69. Resources that FFN caregivers would find helpful by location Location of FFN caregiver

How helpful it would be to have: Metro n=159

Rural n=54

Total N=213

Help with arranging or providing transportation for you and the child(ren) in your care to activities, events or learning opportunities in your community

Very helpful 49.1% 21.4% 42.7% Somewhat helpful 23.9% 25.9% 24.4% Not helpful 27.0% 50.0% 32.9%

Someone to call when you are facing a problem with a child or with the child’s parents


Trained individuals who would come to your house and provide you with a break from caregiving, or read to the child(ren) or work with you and the child(ren) to help them learn and do well in school


Drop-in or respite care for children so you can have some time for yourself Very helpful 32.3% 29.63% 31.6% Somewhat helpful 25.3% 27.8% 25.9% Not helpful 42.4% 42.6% 42.5%

An organization or program that would help you get safety equipment or supplies, so that your home will be safer for children




69. Resources that FFN caregivers would find helpful by location (continued)


How helpful it would be to have: Metro n=159

Rural n=54

Total N=213

Someone who would connect you to organizations that help parents and others who take care of young children, to learn more about how to help children do well in school, while someone else is watching the children. Some examples are Early Childhood and Family Education, Head Start, schools and community organizations.


Small grants that you could apply for, that would pay for books, educational toys and games, and other materials you need to teach children the skills they need for school


Adult community education workshops or other learning opportunities about caring for children


What is the likelihood that you would go to those community education workshops and learning opportunities if child care, a meal and educational supplies were provided free of charge?

Very likely 70.9% 52.5% 66.7% Somewhat likely 24.6% 42.5% 28.7% Not likely 4.5% 5.0% 4.6%


70. Helpfulness of government subsidized food program

Very

helpful Somewhat

helpful Not very helpful

Not at all helpful

How helpful would it be to have access to a government subsidized food program, where, in exchange for regular required paperwork for you to fill out, you could get nutritious food for children at no cost or low cost?

65.7% 16.0% 4.2% 14.1%



Information for FFN caregivers

FFN caregivers were asked what information on child care they would find helpful (see Figure 71). Specifically, respondents rated various types of information as “very helpful,” “somewhat helpful,” not very helpful,” or “not at all helpful.” Information on how to help children learn and do well in school is rated as “very helpful” by the most respondents (79 percent), followed by information on child safety (69 percent), children’s nutrition (68 percent) and dealing with challenges like speech problems and learning disabilities (66 percent).

Overall, more metro area caregivers than rural caregivers rate information as “very helpful.”

More non-relative caregivers than relative caregivers rate each form of information as “very helpful.”

71. Information on child care that FFN caregivers would find helpful by location Location of FFN caregiver

How helpful would it be for you to have access to information on each of these topics?

Metro n=159

Rural n=54

Total N=213

Ideas about activities for children of different ages Very helpful 66.0% 48.1% 61.5% Somewhat helpful 23.9% 38.9% 27.7% Not very helpful 3.8% 5.6% 4.2% Not at all helpful 6.3% 7.4% 6.6%

Children’s health Very helpful 64.8% 48.1% 60.0% Somewhat helpful 28.3% 33.3% 29.6% Not very helpful 4.4% 5.6% 4.7% Not at all helpful 2.5% 13.0% 5.2%

Child safety Very helpful 73.0% 57.4% 69.0% Somewhat helpful 17.0% 25.9% 19.2% Not very helpful 6.3% 9.3% 7.0% Not at all helpful 3.8% 7.4% 4.7%

Children’s nutrition Very helpful 69.8% 61.1% 67.6% Somewhat helpful 22.0% 22.2% 22.1% Not very helpful 5.0% 11.1% 6.6% Not at all helpful 3.1% 5.6% 3.8%



71. Information on child care that FFN caregivers would find helpful by location (continued)


How helpful would it be for you to have access to information on each of these topics?

Metro n=159

Rural n=54

Total N=213

Dealing with behavioral problems and how to discipline children

Very helpful 68.6% 66.7% 68.1%

Somewhat helpful 23.9% 20.4% 23.0%

Not very helpful 4.4% 5.6% 4.7%

Not at all helpful 3.1% 7.4% 4.2%

Child development, or what children should know and be able to do at different ages

Very helpful 69.2% 48.1% 63.8%




Challenges like speech problems or learning disabilities

Very helpful 69.8% 53.7% 65.7%




How to help children learn and do well in school

Very helpful 80.5% 74.1% 78.9%




Information about community events for children and caregivers

Very helpful 66.6% 50.0% 62.0%






Likelihood of using various formats

FFN caregivers were asked to rate how likely they are to use the information they need if it were presented in various formats (see Figure 72). Slightly over three-fourths say they would be “very likely” to use kits or packets with supplies and materials that fit the ages of the children in their care. About 68 percent say they are “very likely” to use books, and 61 percent say they are “very likely” to use videos or DVDs.

More non-relative caregivers say they are very likely to use videos or DVDs (69 percent) or to have personal discussions or interactions with someone trained in one of the topics (56 percent) than relative caregivers (58 percent and 44 percent).

In terms of language, almost half of FFN caregiver respondents in this CCAP-related study feel it is very important or somewhat important to get written materials in a language other than English either for themselves or the children in their care (see Figure 73). Similarly, more than half say it is very important or somewhat important to get education videos, DVDs or CDs in a language other than English for themselves or for the children in their care.

72. Likelihood of using various formats If information on the topic(s) you listed as helpful was available, how likely would you be to use it in the following formats? (N=208)

Very likely

Somewhat likely

Somewhat unlikely

Very unlikely

Kits or packets with supplies and materials that fit the ages of the children in your care 78.8% 17.8% 1.0% 2.4% Books 68.3% 21.6% 4.8% 5.3% Videos or DVDs 61.1% 27.9% 3.8% 7.2% Brochures or small booklets 54.3% 30.3% 7.2% 8.2% Newsletters or magazines 51.4% 33.2% 4.8% 10.6% Personal discussions or interactions with someone trained in these topics 47.6% 32.7% 9.1% 10.6% CD-ROMs 35.6% 25.5% 10.6% 28.4%


73. Importance of getting materials in a language other than English

(N=213) Very

important Somewhat important

Not important

How important is it for you to be able to get written educational materials for you, or for the children you care for, in a language other than English? 31.5% 17.8% 50.7% How important is it for you to educational videos, DVDs or CDs for you, or for the children you care for, in a language other than English? 31.0% 22.1% 46.9%



Likelihood of using various locations for learning opportunities

Respondents were also asked the likelihood that they would use various locations for the child care learning opportunities they say they would likely attend if they were available. According to these self-reports, as shown in Figure 74, about 71 percent of respondents are very likely to attend if the learning opportunity occurs in a neighborhood school; 69 percent are very likely to attend if it occurs in a local library, and 65 percent are very likely to attend if it occurs in a local community center.

More than one-third of FFN caregivers say they are not likely to attend if the learning opportunity takes place in a mall or shopping center, and about one-fourth are unlikely to attend if it takes place in another caregiver’s home.

FFN caregivers in metro area study counties are more likely to attend than caregivers in rural study counties if the learning opportunity takes place in a local library (33 percent versus 18 percent) or in a local community or cultural center (24 percent versus 12 percent).

As shown in Figure 75, almost one-fourth of respondents say that it would make a big difference to them if there were a small fee to cover the cost of a workshop or informal training. Almost half say it would not make much difference, and another one-fourth say it would make no difference.

When asked what would keep them from attending these workshops or informal trainings, 44 percent of FFN caregivers say nothing, that they usually attend. About one-fourth say that conflicts with other activities would be a barrier for them. Slightly over one-tenth say transportation, weather or distance; and about one-tenth say time of day.

Respondents in the metro and rural study counties cite similar potential barriers.


74. Likelihood of FFN caregivers using various locations for learning opportunities

If community education workshops or learning opportunities were available, likelihood you would attend if they were held in these places: (N=166)

Very likely

Somewhat likely

Not likely

A local church or place of worship 60.8% 28.9% 10.2% A neighborhood school 71.1% 25.9% 3.0% A local library 69.3% 25.3% 5.4% A local community or cultural center 65.1% 28.3% 6.6% A local community college 55.2% 29.1% 15.8% A recreation center 59.6% 31.3% 9.0% A social service agency 51.5% 33.3% 15.2% A senior citizens center 50.6% 29.5% 19.9% A mall or shopping center 39.8% 25.3% 34.9% Another caregiver’s home 37.6% 37.0% 25.5%

Source: CCAP survey of caregivers Note: Question was only asked of caregiver respondents who report being “very” or “somewhat likely” to attend community education workshops or learning opportunities.

75. FFN caregivers’ barriers to attending learning opportunities

Total

N=165 Would it make any difference if the workshops or informal trainings charged a small fee to cover costs?

A big difference 24.8% Not much difference 49.1% No difference 26.1%

Is there anything that would keep you from attending the workshops or informal trainings if they were available?

Nothing; I usually attend 43.6% Conflict with work or other activities 25.5% Transportation, weather or distance 11.5% Time of day 10.9% Not having child care 8.5% Money (if it costs too much) 8.5% If the topic wasn't interesting 1.2% If I didn't like the trainer 0.6%

Source: CCAP survey of caregivers Note: Questions were only asked of caregiver respondents who report being “very” or “somewhat likely” to attend community education workshops or learning opportunities. Question about barriers was open-ended with multiple responses allowed. Responses were grouped into categories.


Interest in licensing

About half of FFN caregivers who serve CCAP families are very interested (31 percent) or somewhat interested (21 percent) in getting licensed as a child care provider (see Figure 76).

FFN caregivers in metro area study counties are more likely to be very interested (36 percent) or somewhat interested (24 percent) in becoming a licensed child care provider than caregivers in rural study counties (17 percent versus 12 percent).

As shown in Figure 77, non-relative caregivers are more likely to be very interested in becoming a licensed child care provider (46 percent) than relative caregivers (25 percent). Conversely, relative caregivers are more likely to be not at all interested (40 percent) than non-relative caregivers (16 percent).

Half of the FFN caregivers who are interested in becoming licensed say that the main reason is to make more money. Other reasons for wanting to become licensed include wanting to qualify for more programs (13 percent), wanting to care for children outside their own family (11 percent) and wanting to “make it more legitimate” (10 percent).

As shown in Figure 78, the main reason given for those not wanting to become licensed is that they “just take care of family members” (37 percent).

Relative caregivers are more likely than non-relative caregivers to say that they are not interested in getting licensed because they have another job (11 percent versus 0 percent) or because they just take care of family members (42 percent versus 21 percent).

Non-relative caregivers are more likely than relative caregivers to say that getting licensed is not worth their time (21 percent versus 6 percent).

76. FFN caregivers’ interest in becoming licensed as a child care provider by location


How interested are you in becoming a licensed child care provider?

Metro n=147

Rural n=52

Total N=199

Very interested 36.1% 17.3% 31.2%

Somewhat interested 23.8% 11.5% 20.6%

Not very interested 9.5% 30.8% 15.1%

Not at all interested 30.6% 40.4% 33.2%



77. FFN caregivers’ interest in becoming licensed as a child care provider by FFN caregiver’s relationship to randomly selected child

Relationship of FFN caregiver to child

How interested are you in becoming a licensed child care provider?

Relativesn=142

Non-relatives

n=57 Total

N=199 Very interested 25.4% 45.6% 31.2% Somewhat interested 21.8% 17.5% 20.6% Not very interested 12.7% 21.1% 15.1% Not at all interested 40.1% 15.8% 33.2%


78. FFN caregivers’ main reason for interest or lack of interest in becoming licensed

Total Main reason you would be interested in becoming licensed N=70

To care for more children/make more money 50.0% To qualify for more programs 12.9% To care for children outside my own family 11.4% To make it more legitimate 10.0% To further my education about children 8.6% To provide food program services 4.3% To help families 2.9%

Main reason you would not be interested in becoming licensed N=91 I just take care of family members 37.4% I’m too old/retired 13.2% It’s not worth my time 8.8% I have another job 8.8% There is too much regulation 6.6% I would rather have a job outside 6.6% It costs too much to get licensed 5.5% It’s too much work 4.4% The hours are too long 4.% The pay is too little 3.3% It is too much responsibility 1.1%

Source: CCAP survey of caregivers Note: Categories derived from open-ended question with multiple responses allowed. Each respective question was only asked of caregivers if they said they are “very” or “somewhat” interested or if they said they are “not very” or ”not at all” interested in becoming licensed.


Conclusion This study describes FFN caregivers registered with the Minnesota Child Care Assistance Program (CCAP) and the child care used by families receiving child care subsidies in two Twin Cities metropolitan counties and three rural counties. Based on discussion with the researchers and the study advisory committee, these Department of Human Services recommendations take a CCAP-specific view of FFN care, building on research recommendations for supporting FFN caregivers and improving FFN care statewide. (To review the recommendations arising from the statewide FFN survey, see the report on that survey.)19

1. Recognize and respect the inherent strengths of FFN care in all its diversity, while at the same time improving the quality of care.

FFN care is a vital resource for families. CCAP FFN caregivers provide care nearly full time (38 hours per week). This is twice as much care, on average, than FFN caregivers generally. Policymakers should recognize cultural differences and the essential voluntary and personal relationships of FFN caregiving when attempting to improve the quality of FFN care.

2. Support Minnesota Department of Human Services (DHS) efforts to ensure that child care quality improvement activities are open, inclusive and accessible to all FFN caregivers.

Study results indicate strong interest among CCAP FFN caregivers in becoming licensed family child care providers, much more interest than among FFN caregivers generally. Provide support and incentives to enable CCAP FFN caregivers to participate in Minnesota’s professional development system, Child Care Resource & Referral system training and grant programs, tribal supports for child care, and initiatives to support school readiness in child care settings. In particular, provide access to the food and nutrition program, which strongly interests CCAP FFN caregivers.

19 Chase, R., et al. 2005. Family, Friend and Neighbor Caregivers, Results of the 2004 Minnesota



3. Conduct targeted outreach that offers information and support options to FFN caregivers wherever they may be.

CCAP FFN caregivers, compared with FFN caregivers generally, express stronger interest in resources and information and a higher likelihood of using those resources.

DHS should continue to support targeted outreach efforts to CCAP FFN caregivers and the families who use them, devising outreach strategies specific to this group of families. Framing the outreach around school readiness for younger children and school success for older children would resonate with CCAP FFN caregivers.

4. Offer learning opportunities through a neighborhood-based approach that links FFN caregivers to resources, advice, knowledge and peer support.

CCAP FFN caregivers, like FFN caregivers generally, seem to prefer familiar, established places for learning, such as neighborhood schools, libraries and community centers. Use resources (books, games, materials and safety supplies) as incentives for participation, and pay attention to language, culture and literacy issues.

Facilitate peer support, providing opportunities for caregivers to socialize and to connect with other caregivers. Early Childhood Family Education, for example, could tailor classes for CCAP FFN participants and could also serve as a source of parental support since CCAP FFN caregivers frequently turn to parents for sources of ideas and information.

family, friends and neighbors caring for children through ... · child care assistance, child care...

Documents